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

reply to post by plube


Good post! PLB just proved himself a troll.

More evidence the tops collapsed independent of the bottom,

WTC 1...



But of course you have to pay attention to detail to notice it.

now i am going to show a photo from WTC2 this is a photo from NIST....they put the arrow there....now Question...you see the kink...I myself do find it curious....do you not.
What does it say to you....because frankly it says way to much to me...but i would like your opinion...and also NIST in the end chose to leave this photo out of their investigation yet it is quite telling that something extremely strange is going on inside the building at just what appears...(a guess on my part)...about five stories down.
there is buckling and twisting going on like it is not staying together but it is collapsing which is not strange in itself....just strange that it seems to have lost all rigidity...already

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd31e280aef4.jpg[/atsimg]

you see i am going to ask you questions now...so that i dont feel i am going nuts...then i might be able to get to learn what you see...rather than what i am interpreting.

Also i would like to know if you see....on the lower right....large amounts of what appears to be molten metal...and do you see white smoke.

and if you see these things...because i think i do....can you tell me in your opinion why it should be.

Originally posted by pteridine

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.

I thought you somehow knew they weren't caused by explosives, but other random things? Now you're changing your mind, and admit they could have been explosives?

What demolition theory are you assuming when you say that random noises collectively prove CD?

Show me where I said this. And after I just got done telling you that I make it a point not to make positive claims to people who like you who have so much trouble justifying their own claims that all you ever do is try to divert and change the subject instead. Now you're just making things up that I never said.

reply to post by plube


Damage in that particular spot is odd, I have no explanation for it.

Anyway, you are not really going anywhere with all this. First you mistakenly confuse the line you drew yourself with the one I drew, and you continue with explaining why it is all wrong. You also admit there is a large margin of error. It seems to me you agree that the lines I drew could also be correct. If you agree to that, you also must agree that you just can't tell if the top section disintegrated, of collapsed, simply because the view is obscured by smoke and dust. It seems to me that is the end of the discussion.

Originally posted by -PLB-
If you agree to that, you also must agree that you just can't tell if the top section disintegrated, of collapsed, simply because the view is obscured by smoke and dust. It seems to me that is the end of the discussion.

Once again, the very large amount of dust and debris is indicative of something in itself. For one thing it shows that the concrete slabs are already being turned into powder. And a floor-on-floor impact would only carry the dynamic loading of a single floor's loads, not the entire building, which is supported by columns, none of which were over the concrete slabs but on the outside and inside of them.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

What would cause the top section, (singular) of WTC2 to disintegrate is that most all connections comprising its parts, had lost their integrity and it simply fell apart, what caused THAT is what everybody is asking. This thread raises one possibility at least, in the bolted connections being destroyed and the Meccano set falls apart. The top-end of the South tower tilted extremely, at least 22 degrees and past the point of recovery, see here third picture down, (edit for bad link)

guardian.150m.com...

It should have fell off and away and carried on down to the ground in a big lump but amazingly, it did appear to recover, only not really, as it was never seen again as a big lump, only little bits and pieces in the same trajectory as where the big lump should have been. There are more stills photographs much closer up of WTC2's disintegration, some taken by photographers who did not survive, I'll look for more, but it is something you could do for yourself, don't take my word for it.

This picture is also WTC2 it actually looks like a part of the core in descent with not much underneath it, that could simply mean that it is a core part belonging to the top section and is also falling away. In the lower right are segments of the outer walls,

img171.imageshack.us...

again the start of WTC2 collapse in the first two or three seconds, here not only has it reached the point of no return in its lean, it is also bending in its own section as is noticeable at the two visible corners, that would indicate some vertical rigidity at least had been lost at the lower end for a start but it also indicates that the higher floors of the top section had some resistance. That should mean at least part of the top section should have reached ground level intact, but there is no evidence of that, but there is evidence of it reaching the ground in little pieces.

911research.wtc7.net...

Now PLB you asked for shots from different angles....

ok here we go.....the black arow shows original height....

the purple arrow shows roofline...and the blue arrow show APROX initial collapse point.....

ok at zero sec mark

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2a2bee8e6ee.jpg[/atsimg]

we see building intact...top section also...would you agree.

approx 1.5 sec mark we see
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/022f108c0047.jpg[/atsimg]
roofline of tower lower....but do we see lots more damge and point of collapse.

approx 3 sec mark...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a0fe67faff08.jpg[/atsimg]
we see roofline drops...about half way between the start point and inital point of collapse...would you agree.

Now if that is the case that would mean as i showed before the upper section is undergoing it's own collapse before even impacting the lower section....which once again makes Bazant's paper invalid...now tis whole thing seems strange to me...becuase...in those 16 floors...what has happened to that central core....is Jon Cole correct and the structure was ....weaken by placed charges...I am not sure....
But when i showed you the way the debris was expelled at high velocity.....i would say there was something with a much greater force going on here....but i will not guess...i can only base things on what we see occuring in the structures..and wonder why NIST and Bazant would put forward such papers...and also why Evidence was Quickly gotten Rid of....and why Engineers were not allow access to see and measure what sort of forces acted upon individual sections that came down.
I dont know myself what made the buildings behave the way they did...but i can reasonably say NIST failed in it's reporting...and Bazants paper is not worth the paper it is writtenon when it comes to progressive collapse of these structures.

Here's a good vid showing WTC 1 again, pay attention to the fact that the top is collapsing before the bottom collapses...



That proves that the top was not acting as one block, and some other energy must have been involved to break up the top and collapse the rest of the building.

Edit; and again as a comparison...

reply to post by -PLB-


I state the lines are there to show the section of the upper section...i said it would just elongate the box..but unlike you i will say if i make line on the red box shorter or longer it is not the factor that is important in that photo...it is a reference to the section remaining intact....the white line is approximate also as it show an aproximate place for the collapse i would say it was fairly close as it is the fulcrum of when the building begins to lean. your saying the lines could be moved is semantics on your part...because..you see i will say when your right...the lines can be moved witin that area they were to show the upper section collapsing in on itself...which it is....
so in your head...i ask again...does the upper section appear to be collapsing.(on itself)

reply to post by plube


Maybe 1 or 2 floors collapse of the top section. It is really hard to see. But it would not surprise me as like you said the heat and fire goes up so you expect the lower floors in the top section to be damage and weakened. But it is not possible to see what happens exactly.

Originally posted by ANOK
Here's a good vid showing WTC 1 again, pay attention to the fact that the top is collapsing before the bottom collapses...

That proves that the top was not acting as one block, and some other energy must have been involved to break up the top and collapse the rest of the building.

It also proves that the collapse didn't initiate with floors falling. The perimeter and core columns, and the floors between them, all went at the same time. The core structure held up the antenna and the antenna even starts sinking at the exact same time.

So much for NIST's theory, and so much for any "progressive collapse" theory that revolves around floors coming loose and starting everything. The whole top section of WTC1 just starts folding into the impacted area like an accordion, all at once, core columns and perimeter columns and all.

reply to post by bsbray11


Maybe you are confused with another report (most likely FEMA), but the NIST report states exactly that: the complete top section fell, not individual floors.

reply to post by plube


I took a look at the pictures, but they are bad quality and it is hard to discriminate between building and smoke or dust. There also seems to be something wrong with the last one as I see a horizontal line when I zoom in where the dust cloud stops abruptly.I recommend using this footage:www.youtube.com... its the best I know of.

Anyway, I think it is save to say that you can not see if (most of) the top section collapses because of the smoke and dust obscures the view. So unless you find something convincing I doubt further analysis gives us much more insight.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Maybe you are confused with another report (most likely FEMA), but the NIST report states exactly that: the complete top section fell, not individual floors.

Well even NIST doesn't say the core structure failed at the same time the perimeter structure did, even though you're right about NIST disagreeing with "pancake" theories. I was thinking of NIST's "progressive collapse" theory but then I remember that their "progressive collapse" is different from "pancake" theories and everyone who speaks of "progressive" collapses in those terms, because NIST simply asserted that some chaotic and unpredictable mess ensued that was "inevitable" yet couldn't be modeled to any degree whatsoever. And yet the same thing happened twice in a row, despite the apparent unpredictability.

Did you notice the symmetry of all 4 corners of WTC1's roof dropping within a fraction of a second of each other? At least WTC2 leaned, albeit briefly, like a naturally unstable and asymmetrically-damaged structure would. That's another significant piece of information that NIST wasn't able to explain.

reply to post by bsbray11


As I expected, another angry rant from you.

It looks as though you don't want to evidence of demolition. There is no evidence of CD when we compare the videos of WTC collapse and the known CD of buildings and there is no physical evidence in the WTC site.

reply to post by bsbray11


Its all in the report. Of course you can disagree with the explanation, but saying the explanation isn't there is untrue.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Its all in the report. Of course you can disagree with the explanation, but saying the explanation isn't there is untrue.

Okay, where in the report? Can you show me exactly what you're talking about?

NIST had two FAQs on the WTC. I can only pull up one of them now, but the other one showed what I am referring to.

If I had to guess I'd say you are assuming there is an explanation in the report, but just to make sure, show me what you're referring to specifically. Because as far as I remember they even said themselves in their first FAQ that the simultaneous pulling-inward of so many columns by independent trusses was unlikely.

Originally posted by pteridine
As I expected, another angry rant from you.

You're terrible at gauging others' emotions.

Stop ignoring the questions I'm asking you:

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine

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.

I thought you somehow knew they weren't caused by explosives, but other random things? Now you're changing your mind, and admit they could have been explosives?

So which is it? Are you saying the explosions could in fact have been caused by explosives, or are you saying you have proof they must have been something else?

In every single response, you try to change the subject completely.

weasel
verb

1: to use weasel words : equivocate
2: to escape from or evade a situation or obligation —often used with out
transitive verb
: to manipulate shiftily

Sound familiar? I ask you questions, you erroneously tell me that I'm angry and totally ignore the actual substance of my post, so you can go on another typical rant. Stop projecting your own problems onto me.

reply to post by bsbray11


Or maybe you are assuming its not there, as some hours ago you didn't even know what was in the report at all. You can read page 151 in the final report for a summary.

reply to post by -PLB-


yes your right...see i think we are geting some where...i would not expect tem to colapse at all as this is a steel structure with a central core...but lets say for a sec that is what is happenning ok. now before i showed you a picture of the steel in the hat truss....would you agree that is is substanstial....and if...the floors are already collapsing does that mean that the upper section is INTACT or is it undergoing structural failure on it's own.