Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by P1DrummerBoy

 

It also disproves that the resistance was close to non existing. Ejecting complete floors requires significant amounts of energy. So in a CD where the resistance is removed, you would definitely expect the floors to stack. The argument is a two edged sword.

The speed of collapse demonstrates a lack of resistance - far too fast for a 'pancake' - and indeed, "ejecting complete floors requires significant amounts of energy". Hmm, I wonder where that kind of energy might come from that would account for the ejecting of floors and the speed of collapse?

Explosives? Tick. that seems to cover all the bases.

And exploding a building in a CD will not cause the "floors to stack" at all, unless that is what the demolition experts want to do. Seeing as the building explodes violently at the top and progresses down - exploding all the way, shooting out debris sideways, then I'm guessing a CD "pancake" wasn't what they were going for (too blatantly obvious perhaps) which is why they fell so fast and why we don't see any evidence of pancaking.

Your posts demonstrate the clear difference between us and you. Nearly all of us started out believing the OS, because it's what we were "told", but then we found that the evidence didn't support it. We were driven by the evidence. Whereas you have clearly accepted what you are told and are sticking with it despite all the evidence. You don't allow the evidence to lead you, but are lead by your bias and so you try to make it fit your belief, selecting, deleting and distorting the evidence all the way. This is why you end up tying yourself in so many contradictory knots.

Originally posted by Malcram
The speed of collapse demonstrates a lack of resistance - far too fast for a 'pancake' - and indeed, "ejecting complete floors requires significant amounts of energy". Hmm, I wonder where that kind of energy might come from that would account for the ejecting of floors and the speed of collapse?

Explosives? Tick. that seems to cover all the bases.

When you watch any demolition video in existence you will notice that not a single explosion ever ejected a column for several meters. Can you give an approximation of the amount of explosives needed to displace a column 100 meter? And can you give a reasonable explanation why so much explosives were used in the WTC, and why there is no sign of the shock waves? Remember, controlled demolition is about destroying the supports so that a building collapses, not about blowing it into a million little pieces. Most truthers theories revolve around the idea that the used charges were very discrete, hence the whole thermite idea.

And exploding a building in a CD will not cause the "floors to stack" at all, unless that is what the demolition experts want to do. Seeing as the building explodes violently at the top and progresses down - exploding all the way, shooting out debris sideways, then I'm guessing a CD "pancake" wasn't what they were going for (too blatantly obvious perhaps) which is why they fell so fast and why we don't see any evidence of pancaking.

So if the floors do not stack, what exactly do they fall on? How can you make a building collapse without the floors falling on top of each other? Isn't basic theory of the truth moment that a gravity driven progressive collapse did occur, with only difference the supports were weakened by charges? So why should one result in stacked floors and the other not?
Maybe you do not support that idea, if so, please share your view on it.

Originally posted by -PLB-

When you watch any demolition video in existence you will notice that not a single explosion ever ejected a column for several meters.

You are making a claim here. Did you just make that up?

I gather we both accept that explosives could certainly displace a column 100 meters. That is not really in dispute, is it? What is in dispute is if that is what happened at the WTC.

[quote]Can you give an approximation of the amount of explosives needed to displace a column 100 meter?

Yes. lots. The amount isn't really relevant, at least at this stage. If the collapse cannot be legitimately and fully explained without recourse to explosive and pyrotechnic materials - and the OS certainly doesn't explain it - then, as Sherlock might say, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Gravity driven collapse, initiated by fire, at the speeds seen is impossible. The OS is impossible. Once we accept that, and if we find that explosives - however improbable that may seem to you - must have been involved, then it becomes relevant to discuss what type and how much. So far we have evidence of thermite and other massive explosions far from the impact points

Remember, controlled demolition is about destroying the supports so that a building collapses, not about blowing it into a million little pieces.

If you are determined to bring a building down, with no margin for error, and to destroy the evidence of the means of it's destruction, and if you are determined to psychologically traumatize an entire nation so that they are open to all sorts of wild suggestions, then blowing the buildings into tiny pieces in rather spectacular fashion is exactly what you would do.

So if the floors do not stack, what exactly do they fall on? How can you make a building collapse without the floors falling on top of each other? Isn't basic theory of the truth moment that a gravity driven progressive collapse did occur, with only difference the supports were weakened by charges? So why should one result in stacked floors and the other not? Maybe you do not support that idea, if so, please share your view on it.

If much of the material has been blown into relatively tiny pieces and/or blown out to the side, then their is far less below to resist the fall or to stack up. You have seen the photos. It's not a neat pancake. Again, I think it's about following the evidence and eliminating the impossible scenario's first.

I realize I haven't addressed all points but I'm moving house tomorrow and I'm grabbing net time between packing. Either others will address the couple of points I missed or I'll try to get back on it later.

Originally posted by Malcram

You are making a claim here. Did you just make that up?

To make it clear, I am trying to say that this does not happen with controlled demolition. If there is one freak case where it did happen it would be irrelevant. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? What is your evidence?

I gather we both accept that explosives could certainly displace a column 100 meters. That is not really in dispute, is it? What is in dispute is if that is what happened at the WTC.
Yes. lots. The amount isn't really relevant, at least at this stage. If the collapse cannot be legitimately and fully explained without recourse to explosive and pyrotechnic materials - and the OS certainly doesn't explain it - then, as Sherlock might say, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Gravity driven collapse, initiated by fire,at the speeds seen is impossible. The OS is impossible. Once we accept that, and if we find that explosives - however improbable that may seem to you - must have been involved, then it becomes relevant to discuss what type and how much. So far we have evidence of thermite and other massive explosions far from the impact points

It is of extreme relevance for the point we were discussing. We are not talking about the OS, but about the reason debris was ejected from the building.

If you are determined to bring a building down, with no margin for error, and to destroy the evidence of the means of it's destruction, and if you are determined to psychologically traumatize an entire nation so that they are open to all sorts of wild suggestions, then blowing the buildings into tiny pieces in spectacular fashion is exactly what you would do.

But not if you want to hide that you use explosives in order to fool everyone into believe the planes caused it. There is absolutely no evidence that points in the direction of a huge explosion. Even the evidence of discrete explosions is a controversial subject, where truthers come with all kind of reasons why there was no convincing evidence if them. Why do you think Jon Cole did those thermite experiments in the first place? Because he thinks the buildings were blown into a million pieces using massive amounts of explosives?

If much of the material has been blown into relatively tiny pieces and/or blown out to the side, then their is far less below to resist the fall or to stack up. You have seen the photos. It's not a neat pancake. Again, I think it's about following the evidence and eliminating the impossible scenario's first.

The evidence show no shock waves whatsoever that could have blown that debris out. So I am not sure what you are following exactly, but it isn't evidence.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I make it a point not to make claims considering I'm only here to rattle you know-it-alls who think you already have it all worked out, since you obviously don't.

So you are merely trolling and don't intend to enter into any meaningful dialogue. Many on this board already knew this and now you confirm it. You haven't rattled anyone or provided any original insights and seem to be perpetually angry. Que triste.
As to the theories of CD, or just plain D, there is no evidence. The reference I made to DEW was to show that there is as much evidence for that as for explosive or super thermite demolition, which is to say, none. Making serious claims requires serious evidence and there isn't any. There is only a group of people saying that the collapses "didn't look right" based only on notions from disaster movies. Explosions in fires are not uncommon. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel and uncontrolled office fires may provide even more opportunity for such.
The starting premise of the theorists was that CD or D had occurred and the witch hunt began for the evidence to prove the predetermined conclusion. The purported explosions did not appear to cause collapse. A flash-boom was not followed by falling building and discriminating between a boom of an explosion and a boom of a falling structural member as heard on tape is not possible. The videos of CD brought forward as evidence by the CDer's provided stark visual and audio evidence that a conventional CD had NOT occurred. Conventional CD is accompanied by many small sharp explosions of linear shaped charges, something not seen in the collapse of any WTC building. Given that, when no common patterns of CD explosions were seen, CTer's resorted to other things, like super secret nanothermite, quiet explosives, and such. The favorite for a while was to show photos of diagonally cut columns during cleanup and suggest that these were evidence of demolition even when photos of salvage workers making the cuts were provided as rebuttal. None of the CD theorists can explain the use of exotic or unconventional materials or propose theories explaining details of setting charges, timing, personnel required, or method of detonation that would support their theories. All they do is clamor for more investigation. It is unlikely that they will ever get it based on what they call evidence, at this point.

reply to post by -PLB-


Before you can make the claim that whole floors fell and impacted lower floors you have to first provide evidence that the plane and fire could do that, not just assume it happened because that's what we're told. For the NIST hypothesis to work the floors had to fall as one unit straight down, and we all know that didn't happen to WTC 2.

Anyway I'm going to attempt one last time to explain it to you, as simply as I can, why even IF that did happen as we're told the final outcome of the collapses contradicts that claim.

Newtons 3rd law of motion...

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Velocity changes the forces equally on BOTH objects (so your claim that velocity is the cause is wrong). The floors are of equal mass, the top floors did not drop far enough to gain any extra mass. When equal masses collide the damage is more or less equal, one isn't going to destroy the other. So one mass is not going to go through the other mass and continue on with enough energy to go through yet more mass. The build up of resistance would slow and resist the collapse long before it was complete.

Why do you think complete floors are seen piled up in a true pancake collapse? Because the floors don't fail, the columns holding them up fail. There is not enough force for the floors to destroy themselves.

Edit; Remember the falling floors are not only destroying the floor they impact, they are breaking the bolts and welds holding the floors to the columns. Where is that energy coming from?

So you have a catch 22, you can't have the floors compacting and have energy to continue collapsing, and you can't have floors destroy floors and not have any still intact at the end of the collapse.

There HAD to be another force acting on the building for it to have been a complete collapse.

reply to post by ANOK


The theory proposed by NIST is not that a single floor collapsed on the floor below it, but that the complete top section fell down as result of failing columns. That is the mass of at least 16 floors if I recall correctly, including the columns and whatever was on the roof. Bazants model assumes that this mass perfectly falls on the load carrying supports below it. This is an idealized best case scenario. And even in this best case scenario, he found that the columns would fail and a progressive collapse was inevitable, purely by calculating the involved forces. In reality the mass would not fall exactly on the supports and the forces would not be perfectly distributed, resulting in both much higher loads on individual columns as well as the columns being dislocated by the floor. That makes the required forces only smaller.

I have been told in this thread that this is totally wrong and that the physics are very simple, I am just too stupid to understand it. What I have not been told is what those simple physics are exactly. No calculations that show why it is wrong. I am just supposed to "know" what a mass of at least 16 stories would do when it is dropped on the building below it from a height of a couple of meters. I lack that skill and I require to see the equations and the math in order to get that insight.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Bazants model assumes that this mass perfectly falls on the load carrying supports below it. This is an idealized best case scenario. ... In reality the mass would not fall exactly on the supports and the forces would not be perfectly distributed, resulting in both much higher loads on individual columns as well as the columns being dislocated by the floor. That makes the required forces only smaller.

And would also lead to a seriously asymmetrical collapse, Yes?

An "idealized" scenario indeed. But as you say, "in reality" this would not happen. What did happen invalidates the OS.

reply to post by Malcram


The model only proves a progressive collapse would occur in the most optimistic circumstances. And most optimistic means that the lower section would offer ideal resistance. In reality the resistance would be lower due to fact the mass will not fall exactly on the supporting columns, the load is distributed uneven and columns are displaced by the floors. So what actually happened did not invalidate Bazants model, as nowhere it is stated that Bazants model accurately represents all collapse details. No model by definition will. It is only meant to prove that progressive collapse occurred.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

The theory proposed by NIST is not that a single floor collapsed on the floor below it, but that the complete top section fell down as result of failing columns. That is the mass of at least 16 floors if I recall correctly, including the columns and whatever was on the roof. Bazants model assumes that this mass perfectly falls on the load carrying supports below it. This is an idealized best case scenario. And even in this best case scenario, he found that the columns would fail and a progressive collapse was inevitable, purely by calculating the involved forces. In reality the mass would not fall exactly on the supports and the forces would not be perfectly distributed, resulting in both much higher loads on individual columns as well as the columns being dislocated by the floor. That makes the required forces only smaller.

I have been told in this thread that this is totally wrong and that the physics are very simple, I am just too stupid to understand it. What I have not been told is what those simple physics are exactly. No calculations that show why it is wrong. I am just supposed to "know" what a mass of at least 16 stories would do when it is dropped on the building below it from a height of a couple of meters. I lack that skill and I require to see the equations and the math in order to get that insight.

edit on 5-1-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

The top section in WTC2 fell down, and in the main, away from the rest of the building, and pictures show the top section also in disintegration itself. So there was not x numbers of floors falling down on the structure below. plus WTC2's core survived momentarily to a considerable height. The same applies to WTC1 except that there is no video evidence of the core surviving momentarily, as far as I know. There is video of a large section of WTC1 falling also from much higher up, and away from the structure below,and into the street. As regards this thread, there is no question that John Cole has provided a possible way to collapse any building in a controlled way, and in several different ways, ultimately producing the desired effect with the same substance, but not in the conventional sense.

It is really exciting to see these theories being independently verified by scientists all over the world. The 9/11 issue is turning into an Area 51 where everyone will know the truth but the government just smiles and denies. No politician in Washington wants to talk about anything to do with 9/11. Some criticize Ron Paul for not being a "truther" but at least he's standing up by calling out the CIA and calling for an end to the patriot act. If we remain united we can not be stopped.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11
I make it a point not to make claims considering I'm only here to rattle you know-it-alls who think you already have it all worked out, since you obviously don't.

So you are merely trolling and don't intend to enter into any meaningful dialogue...

Another massive rant based on fallacy after fallacy.

Keep it to yourself. The only thing I asked from you was,

What demolition theory are you assuming when you say the scores of testimonies of explosives collectively disprove CD?

Everyone can see right through your behavior when you avoid simple questions about your claims and choose to post massive rants instead.

reply to post by bsbray11


Cognitive Dissonance will prevent OS believers from changing their paradigm on the cause of 911 collapse.

“Dissonant cognitions” will cause us to dismiss or alter conflicting information or add justification to one side or the other—not necessarily rationally—in order to regain psychological balance. It’s an important concept to consider in terms of the way people block things out or justify things to themselves.

■In presenting new, contradictory (dissonant) evidence concerning 9/11, it is frustrating how many people immediately begin to bring up rationalizations and excuses in order to dismiss the significance of the information. You can often witness cognitive dissonance in action as these skeptics try to avoid the psychological turmoil of facing the very disturbing implications of 9/11 Truth. The collapse of WTC 7 is an interesting example. Skeptics are likely to quickly dismiss this piece of evidence rather than acknowledge the suspicious fact that the destruction of a third skyscraper was essentially blacked-out of the official story of 9/11 by the government and media.

“Conspiracy theories” seem to be the quintessentially cognitive dissonant concepts of our culture. For many people, the idea that JFK was killed by the government or “9/11 was an inside job” threatens the entire fabric of their consciousness. These things simply cannot be true and people will bend over backwards and resort to irrationality and ridicule to avoid considering them.

Cognitive dissonance can work both ways. It is extremely difficult to maintain a vigilantly open mind. Whatever your dominant perspective or worldview happens to be, it is inevitable that you will sometimes use rationalizations in order to save the time or mental stress of dealing with conflicting information. Cognitive dissonance is actually a necessary and natural mental function, but it is also a phenomenon that we should be aware of, in ourselves and others, as it is a process that does not always serve us well in the quest for objectivity and truth.

www.truthmove.org...


www.onlinejournal.com...

onlinejournal.com...

onlinejournal.com...

reply to post by bsbray11


What you refer to as a "rant" I refer to as explanation. Your perpetual anger must be due to feelings of inadequacy. I can understand why you feel that way. If you should ever run across any evidence that casts doubt on the NIST report, be sure to post it.
Troll on.

Once again, "pteridine," since you are having such a hard time sticking to your own claims:

Originally posted by bsbray11
What demolition theory are you assuming when you say the scores of testimonies of explosives collectively disprove CD?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, "pteridine," since you are having such a hard time sticking to your own claims:

Originally posted by bsbray11
What demolition theory are you assuming when you say the scores of testimonies of explosives collectively disprove CD?

I did not say that at all. What demolition theory are you assuming when you say that random noises collectively prove CD?

reply to post by smurfy


Tilting is also explained. Top sections did not disintegrate. Thats another odd idea and wouldn't happen even with CD. What could cause the top section to disintegrate according to you? Thermate? How? It is possible though that the bottom of the top section gets damaged as it falls.

Well i did show you the maths PLB in another thread but i will try to Explain in terms that might...probably wont be accepted...but might make sense....and then i would like for you to show me how the maths based on a falsehood could work.

Ok The Bazant paper separates the maths into two parts....The crush down phase....being the maths involved with the INTACT upper section acting upon the lower sections.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ca23d5d12a8a.jpg[/atsimg]

now the Crush up phase(According to Bazant) begins...and ONLY begins after the crush down phase has completed....so just by basing the maths alone on this concept the WHOLE model fails.

now the thing is i am sure you will come back and say the mass is the same...but it Clearly is not as much of the said mass is expelled to the sides which therefore is not acting on the lower section at all.

Now they do take into acount the mass of all the various factors as best they could...Carpets,columns,desks,windows,concrete,.etc,etc,....but all this can only be accounted for if the mass remains INTACT.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/64762794aecf.jpg[/atsimg]

now If you come back and say the mass is INTACT and the calculated mass is correct...and the Equation has to only be based on the tower that was struck at the highest point other wise the whole senario does not work for both bulidings...

But we already know it does not work for both buildings as there could not have possibly been a crush up phase.

now this is where we are going to try to Educate but it will seem strange but, there are some forces involved here other than just gravity...the debris of materials weighing tons travelling great distantces on the horizontal plain are indicative of this...now yes the towers were...exceptionally tall...but did we see them lean...no and if they did then yet again that would eliminate the Crush down phase as the center of gravity would not be over the lower structure.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/203f677724ff.jpg[/atsimg]

Now to point out if you want the maths and you are so smart why not just go get them...it is all availible in Bazants report.

ok lets look what really happened...that completely and logically wipes out Bazants THEORY....and remember...just as truthers are always getting told it is all theory..well why then do The otherside believe THEORY.

THIS IS REALITY

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/41a0851014c7.jpg[/atsimg]
now we see the level of initiation...and the roofline and the red around the entire mass.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99c667b83199.jpg[/atsimg]
we see the NW west corner stil intact...keepig in mind the whole top section needs to remain intact for the Model to work.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf2af176e770.jpg[/atsimg]
the collapse is apparently starting...as we have a touch of a tilt goin on.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88fb5ca0df05.jpg[/atsimg]
the collapse is progessing ...slightly...but is the upper section staying INTACT...even at the beginning.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0ca68aa2418.jpg[/atsimg]
now do we see the lower floor collapsing....nope...we see the lower structure staying intact...while the upper is disintegrating.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c5c24539acd.jpg[/atsimg]
Now we see the Expulsion of that same mass that is required to continue the progressive according to the Bazant paper...the the INTACT upper section is ...gone. The lower section is still relatively unaffected.

Now please go and look into what i am saying...and learn for yourself...because i have lost all faith in your opinions...but i put this out for people who have valid questions and reasonable understanding.

an just one more thing that Is not taken into account in all this....THE CORE.

now as a bonus for you....the maths....as you will see the calculations Assumes the entire mass stays INTACT for the duration of the collapse.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8542828f63c3.jpg[/atsimg]

but i am sure that this still will not even be close to being enough...and if you come back with one repetitive question without going back through this entire thread and thniking about what you are saying before you speak..and don't come back with a logical rebuttle...because i am human and i too make mistakes...and will acknowledge them when i do...but you come back and say ok i got it wrong by a factor of five and then it is shown you got it wrong by a factor ten...and still by a man with a masters...makes things a bit dubious to me when you reply.

Note: to your words...the top did not disitegrate....look at the flippin Fotos....IT DID.

Originally posted by plube
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0ca68aa2418.jpg[/atsimg]
Note: to your words...the top did not disitegrate....look at the flippin Fotos....IT DID.

Your whole point seems to be this last statement: the top section disintegrated. And your whole evidence for this seem to be the image above you included.

Major problems in your analysis: you arbitrarily choose the size of the top section and location of the collapse. You just say "this is the top section" and "this is the point of collapse". How can you precisely determine that from those images? I can easily draw the lines in different locations making the top section whole again and making everything consistent with the fact the top section did not disintegrate.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3de39c93cc10.jpg[/atsimg]

See, mystery solved.

reply to post by -PLB-


I knew you would reply with some sort of crud...there is not anything arbitrary there....the point of where the builing starts its tilt is the only place that the collapse could be initiated in order the meet Bazants criteria...as a floor would have to be removed for the upper section to impact the lower structure...please do not make me make you look any more foolish than your have done so yourself....that would be where the area becomes ELASTIC...due to the fires....The basis of Bazants paper is that the coulmns became heated enough to become elastic....now that therefore is why they weaken they buckle and twist....
that is why the line represents where the collapse was initiated and is not several floors lower where you see smoke....
Once again you show your complete and utter Ignorance...and i even forseen that and stated it...yet you come back with an uneducated and idiotic response....just jumped right in again without thinking why the line was there....There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it...it is purposeful and extremely relavant,but did you come back and say ohh...possibly there is some correctness in what you were saying because the mass had disintegrated...no you skirted it...and then tried to come back with a remark that i showed you was stated without one one ounce of forethought on your part...you looked at it and went ha ha,,,,,.But you know what,,,,it backfired....
like i said i am not respecting your intellectual reasoning anymore....because you have shown that you are not at all who you say you are,because the mistakes you made earlier about the building fall approaching the speed of sound showed that to myself and others.
I am not saying your common sense points will not be looked at with the respect they deserve...but your mathematical.and physics will leave everything to be desired.
so think again why the line is drawn where it was...and what it represents....and that is the real world there...it is not arbitrary...it is fact....we have videos...images...and Data on that....and they don't lie...PEOPLE DO.