It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 20
420
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I notice you just reposted the same thing except this time you've intentionally omitted the "lifted up" part completely, as if no one ever said it. What honesty.



You called me "brian".... That's right, I remember now, you were using the account "ImAPepper" too. It takes a "special kind" to get that personal, and you just keep refreshing my memory.

The personal sniping is what got your other two or three or however many accounts banned. You might as well stop with the "liar" bit, since this obsessive and deceitful behavior alone makes you one of the most dishonest people posting on this entire website.
edit on 23-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


We can't really have a useful discussion when you whole premise is based on a fantasy. Indirectly you are saying the top section was able to somehow slow itself down in just air. Thats just complete nonsense. I don't really understand why the concept of pressure buildup is so offensive to you, and I don't see any willingness to consider it on your side. Strange thing is that you admit that air is blown sideways, but you deny pressure buildup. That is just completely contradictory..



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
We can't really have a useful discussion when you whole premise is based on a fantasy. Indirectly you are saying the top section was able to somehow slow itself down in just air. Thats just complete nonsense.


How am I "indirectly" saying this exactly? I never said it at all.


I don't really understand why the concept of pressure buildup is so offensive to you


That's hard to believe considering I've been showing you plenty of reasons. You apparently find those offensive. Are you still seriously arguing that those ceiling panels caused those blow-outs 20+ floors below too?


Strange thing is that you admit that air is blown sideways, but you deny pressure buildup. That is just completely contradictory..


Watch the video in the OP. Those blow-outs from the thermate, especially the heavily smoky/dusty one, also involve air pressure, and happen to look exactly like what you see at the WTC, only smaller in scale.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
How am I "indirectly" saying this exactly? I never said it at all.


Because you speak of a gap between the collapsing floors and the top section


That's hard to believe considering I've been showing you plenty of reasons. You apparently find those offensive. Are you still seriously arguing that those ceiling panels caused those blow-outs 20+ floors below too?


I have no idea where you got this from. Are you feeling ok? Relax, get both feet on the ground, and read what I write.


Watch the video in the OP. Those blow-outs from the thermate, especially the heavily smoky/dusty one, also involve air pressure, and happen to look exactly like what you see at the WTC, only smaller in scale.


So your whole line of reasoning is based on the assumption thermate was used. That of course does not change the laws of physics and the fall speed of the top section, which would still be pulled on the collapsing floors, without a gap.

So do you agree that if no thermate or explosives were used, just hypothetically speaking, there would be pressure buildup?
edit on 23-12-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I like the approach of john cole; focus on non-deniable Physics, and proof it with repeatable experiments.

So, now we know as fact,that;

- Thermate is able to weaken and cut steal.
- When the steel structure of a building is severly damaged buildings come down in the way they did on 9/11
- On ground zero huge amounts of thermate have been found.

We have the tool, the result, and the proof the tool was used. Physical evidence which will stand every judicial process.

Now I see 3 ways to handle this: on the judicial way, or the political way, 3rd: both ways:

Juidicial:
Let's file an accusation against unknown for placing and using Thermate in buildings and hence putting the lives of thousands of people at risk.

Any aspiring lawyers out there ?? Let's take it to court.

Political:
Let's collect as many voices as possible to get the subject to the Parliament, and demand a second investigation into 9/11.

I am not an american citizen, nor am i a direct victim of 9/11 so I probably can't do it myself but I hope there are enough reasonable people with the needed knowledge out there. Thoughts ? Actions ?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by svetlana84

- On ground zero huge amounts of thermate have been found.


There is no evidence for this whatsoever, so you won't even be able to even start a case.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


plb: check out 911research.wtc7.net...
and see how reasonable the observation of scientists are and how bizarre the NIST explanations are.

one quote from the page mentionnend above, to make it short :

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

Did not test ? So I demand a test. Simple as that.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by bsbray11
How am I "indirectly" saying this exactly? I never said it at all.


Because you speak of a gap between the collapsing floors and the top section


You think all the mass was solidly co-joined at the top, with no huge gaps for air to escape?



Yes, that appears to be what you're saying. I never said nothing was contacting, I said there was a MASSIVE HOLE TO THE ATMOSPHERE FOR AIR TO ESCAPE, which was where this destruction was happening. Do you see this? We seem to keep going over the same thing in different words, but I guess that's what you need to hear here?

Tell me there is not an enormous area for air to escape to the atmosphere there. Please, destroy the credibility of what you are saying that much more.



That's hard to believe considering I've been showing you plenty of reasons. You apparently find those offensive. Are you still seriously arguing that those ceiling panels caused those blow-outs 20+ floors below too?


I have no idea where you got this from. Are you feeling ok? Relax, get both feet on the ground, and read what I write.


Maybe that was another poster then. Do you see the ejections coming out 20+ floors below the collapsing region? They've been posted on the past 2 thread pages. Any comment on those? The only shafts for air to cross down multiple floors were in the core structure, where all the elevator shafts and stairwells and air vents and all that were located. All the office space between the core and the outer walls was separated vertically by 4-5 inches of concrete plus a steel pan, insulation, that kind of stuff, every 12 feet or so.



Watch the video in the OP. Those blow-outs from the thermate, especially the heavily smoky/dusty one, also involve air pressure, and happen to look exactly like what you see at the WTC, only smaller in scale.


So your whole line of reasoning is based on the assumption thermate was used.


My "whole line of reasoning" is based on the fact that what is shown in the OP exactly resembles what is seen in WTC videos, while the excuses you are making are not only tentative and have nothing to compare to, but don't even make sense theoretically. Do you not see this difference?


So do you agree that if no thermate or explosives were used, just hypothetically speaking, there would be pressure buildup?


Not in the way you are suggesting, to cause the violent ejections you are trying to explain away. There are way too many problems even in theory. No way to compress air, no way for it to consistently travel down 20+ floors and then rocket across office space to blow out a very small area of perimeter wall, no way for it to carry down dust and solid debris with it (which is what was actually ejected, not just air -- you seem to be ignoring this repeatedly), etc.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is a way: the elevator shafts and stairwell. Just shouting impossible while repeating flawed arguments like gaps and air resistless debris isn't changing that.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



The problem with your logic is that nanothermite wasn't found.


You really should stop making up fallacies, at this point. Jones proved he found na-nothermite and showed how he discovered it. Either you have a serious reading comprehension or you have completely ignored the tests that are in his journal.


Jones failed to prove his predetermined conclusion that red paint chips were in fact some sort of demolition material.


Predetermined conclusion?

Red paint chips were demolition material?


In your desperations of trying to debunk Jones science without using any science you have now resorted to the most ridiculous assumptions.


Where is your proof to your accusations?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
From the Cole video, it is obvious to me that the thermate was much more effective when in a container. If nanothermite is also more effective when in a container as opposed to open air, could this paint material Jones found, actually be sprayed over top of nanothermite to act as the container? Could that explain the presence of thermite chemicals on one side of the chips?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by svetlana84

- On ground zero huge amounts of thermate have been found.


There is no evidence for this whatsoever, so you won't even be able to even start a case.


Basile, Herrit, Jones and Griscom say ThermIte has been found. They are not the only ones. But you tell me, if the thermite wasnt used to demolish the towers, what was it used for then?
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


The problem with Jones paper is that it is only accepted in the truth movement, not in the real world. So nobody will be able to start a trial with Jones' work as key evidence, as the case wont even be accepted.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


You make a good point. The claims were that the thermite was in the red layer. The gray layer is iron oxide, purportedly from the surface of the structural steel. It was not claimed to be reactive. It would seem that the red paint covering the structural steel is the outermost layer.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by aliengenes
 



the thermite was most likely on the planes or brought up by the fire fighters


So now , we are back to accusing the FDNY of being complicit in killing hundreds of their fellow firefighters ? This is disgusting , that there are people who stoop to this level of ignorance .

Maybe Jones and his cohorts are the ones who "planted" this thermite ? Seeing that they are the only ones who seem to have 'found' any .

Care to explain how the firefighters placed and prepared all this thermite while the buildings were on fire and collapsing ?

Are you really that IGNORANT , that you are ready to accuse firefighters of being responsible for the deaths of thousands of people ? Are you going to accuse them of murdering 300 of their own ?

You are a real class-act .
edit on 23-12-2010 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
The number of flags and stars are amazing by the day. Uphold the truth and glorify its light my fellow friends. Happy holidays



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually it was published in a peer reviewed journal. From what I can tell, I can count the people who do not accept his paper on one hand, thats pterdine, you PTD and Oksomething and probably dave. All conspiracyboys on conspiracyboards.

Well if you want to think that the paper is not accepted in the real world, then may that thought make you happy. I am sorry you will just have to wait for somebody who has the education to do so to debunk the paper.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Seriously though, who do you expect me to believe? An team of PHDs with years of experience who composed the paper over the course of 18 months or you


Funny , you seem to have no problem when it comes to dismissing those proffessionals whom you disagree with .

Ph.D., = Doctor of PHILOSOPHY . What does that have to do with engineering , architecture , structural design , demolition , explosives , etc., ? May as well ask the Pope to explain the collapses .



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Oh sorry I am not from an english speaking country. I assumed PHD was the degree thing and then you get it in chemistry engineering and what not. This can however be deducted from my posts.

So you are either not the brightest bulb in the pack, or you are desperate to angrily nail me for something, anything. I think you are a very bright boy, so why are you so angry, that you are desperate to attack me? Also it was not me who refuted the professionals, it were the many architects and engineers who came forward and you know that hooper knows that.

You all know engineer and architects and chemists and other professionals make up the truth movement. Yet you all angrily insist that it is all just some kids making youtubevideos and spew your venom against anybody says otherwise angrily and venomously attacking them, or at least as angirly and venomously as you can get away with without being banned.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by svetlana84

- On ground zero huge amounts of thermate have been found.


There is no evidence for this whatsoever, so you won't even be able to even start a case.


Basile, Herrit, Jones and Griscom say ThermIte has been found. They are not the only ones. But you tell me, if the thermite wasnt used to demolish the towers, what was it used for then


Basile, Herrit, Jones and Griscom will actually have to make a case for thermite if they wish to pursue this. There are many problems with this theory before the analyses are even considered. First, is the striking similarity in appearance of the chips to the red paint covering the structure. Next, is the unaviodable fact that if it were the energetic material as is claimed, thin layers would only warm the steel if they could be ignited at all. Third is the calculation by Jones that there is 10 to 100 TONS of unburned material in the dust. This means that vast amounts of coating did not burn, yet the towers fell. When confronted with the "warming" calculation, Jones, caught unawares, said that maybe it was used as an electric match to ignite other demolition materials. Granted this was a quick answer to an obvious but unanticipated question but he has not corrected that statement to my knowledge. Now we have 10-100 tons of unburned FUSE material, and the towers still fell. If there was that much fuse, how much main charge was there? Wouldn't someone have noticed thousands of tons of thermite going off?
To get past these little bumps in the road, these serious accusations require that serious analyses be done. The Jones team is ill suited for this, both from their level of bias and their inability to complete the necessary analyses. Samples of the suspect material should be provided to multiple competent analytical chemists with skill sets in the analysis of such coatings and materials for analyses. Until this is done, Jones can only convince those who have already made up their minds.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join