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: 51
420
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The original post said only that Cole had discovered that thermate would do what it was designed to do. There is no evidence for CD; merely the desire of some to find it.


What is was designed to do?

What he shows, is several phenomena that also occurred at the WTC and are regularly "debated" on these forums. And he produced all of these using thermate. And he debunked Nat Geo's erroneous argument regarding thermite.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The original post said only that Cole had discovered that thermate would do what it was designed to do. There is no evidence for CD; merely the desire of some to find it.


What is was designed to do?

What he shows, is several phenomena that also occurred at the WTC and are regularly "debated" on these forums. And he produced all of these using thermate. And he debunked Nat Geo's erroneous argument regarding thermite.


"What is [sic] was designed to do?"

Thermate is designed to cut steel and Cole showed that it does do that. What phenomena appeared to occur at the WTC? Do you know the difference between thermite and thermate? Do you know that Jones claimed thermite and not thermate? Are you now claiming thermate as the likely demolition material?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What phenomena appeared to occur at the WTC?


Re-read the OP. I already posted exactly what I'm talking about, in the very first post on this thread.


Do you know the difference between thermite and thermate? Do you know that Jones claimed thermite and not thermate? Are you now claiming thermate as the likely demolition material?


Cut out the semantic games. He shows in the video exactly what he adds to conventional thermite to quality the "i" being replaced with an "a." For someone who has a fondness for big words I notice you get caught up in them a little too much.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So Jones claimed to have found thermite and Cole used thermate. This is not semantics, it is chemistry. Given that thermite is what Jones claimed and what Nat Geo used, why is Cole using something different? All he did was show that something not claimed to be present cuts steel, as it was designed to do. Cole's demonstration proves nothing, of course.
Tell me about the "deeper booms" again.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



A typical modern day form of thermite, used in military devices for metal cutting, is thermate, with finely powdered sulfur added as part of a flare mixture.


www.energeticnanocomposites.com...


Thermate is a variation of thermite


en.wikipedia.org...


Next you'll be telling me a maple isn't really a tree, it's just a maple. What a convincing argument.
(That's sarcasm btw since you didn't catch it last time.)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine


This is such a ridiculous argument that we've been over before. Thermite and thermate are the same thing.

It IS just a stupid exercise in semantics. Go do a Google search and you'll see as many quotes saying Jones found thermAte as they say thermIte.

Edit;


"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.

www.deseretnews.com...

Thermite with sulfur IS thermAte.

So again what IS the point of your argument?
edit on 1/16/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think he's trying to say that if you take the "a" out of thermate and replace it with an "i," then that proves NIST is right and CD is impossible.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The scientific method can't always be used on historic events. Can you give examples of the evidence you wish to see? Cole does not show evidence. What he does is like showing a gun can kill in order to prove cause of death.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I don't claim a lack of evidence is contradicting the CD "hypothesis, I claim it makes it very implausible. The larger problem is that there isn't really a hypothesis to begin with. In one situations where it suits it were high explosive charges, the next situations where it suits it were thermate charges, the next situations where it suits it was paint on thermite, etc. Anything that even slightly confirms the possibility of an evil plot is accepted without any skeptism, no matter if it doesn't even fit any hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That is seriously an amazing video. It now has me rethinking what the news has put out there for us. Thank you for the great post! S&F from me!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
So where are we now? Is it thermate? Or was it that super paint-on nanothermite? Or was it suppose to be a fse for something else? According to Jones, even he cant get his story straight. Or no wait, wasnt it suppose to have been bombs? High power bombs that were suppose to be able to throw people around, and launch hundreds of tons of steel beam "horizontally"?

Can you folks stop jumping like a Mexican jumping bean, from one wacky idea to another? Its funny how you all poke fun at the OS, and claim its got more holes in it that swiss cheese, and here you all are, jumping from thermite, to thermate, to nano-thermite, to paint on thermite, to red chips, to high power explosives, to silent but powerful paint on thermite fused detonators, to superdooper high power explosive, and then back to thermite. WHICH IS IT? Its either one or the other, not all.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Sorry but we're not here to hold your hand Gen.

If you can't keep up with the discussion, and keep confusing things it's not our problem mate.

You are so transparent in your attempts to derail discussion. What's your next post, another long list of links that are meaningless and irrelevant?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The scientific method can't always be used on historic events.


Some "historic event." It happened in 2001 and none of this stuff is quantum physics. You don't need a CERN to figure out why a skyscraper collapses. The problem isn't that this stuff is too hard. It's that you want to force a certain conclusion, and that conclusion just isn't working. The other route of investigation hasn't even been taken yet, because of people screaming bloody murder and dragging their feet at the very mention of it.


Can you give examples of the evidence you wish to see?


Yes. Evidence of what would actually cause the buildings to come down, exploding outwards in all directions like they did. To be more specific than that would be to already know what exactly caused it, and if you think that's why I'm posting here then once again you have missed the mark of my posts.


Cole does not show evidence. What he does is like showing a gun can kill in order to prove cause of death.


He shows more than that. He actually reproduces things that we already saw at the WTC. That big explosive puff of dust/gas for one. For years "debunkers" have said, "those puffs move too slow to be caused by high explosives," etc. etc., but what he demonstrates is exactly the same type of slower-moving, yet explosive and expansive cloud, caused by a thermate charge explosion. He shows streams of molten steel that look identical to what was pouring out of WTC2 shortly before its collapse. He demonstrates sounds of explosions, albeit quieter than conventional high explosives, just like so many witnesses reported hearing. All of that is circumstantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence is a form of evidence.

And then there's direct evidence. He produces steel that has been corroded away by the reaction to razor-thinness. Where have we seen that before? Appendix C of FEMA's report, complete with chemical analysis. High-temperature corrosive attack by a liquid eutectic consisting primarily of iron. It's right there black and white in the FEMA report, FEMA could not explain it, "debunkers" can only guess at what caused it within their little theories, but the man in the OP reproduced it. The real thing. That is also evidence.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The event is historic because it is impossible to reproduce. You can only reproduce specific aspects.

As for Cole's experiments being proof, he uses all kind of different techniques to "reproduce" certain observed effects, but none of the techniques is able to reproduce all the effects at once. He doesn't have a hypothesis, he just keeps on experimenting until he ends up with some effects that look a bit similar. Do you call that science? Cole makes some nice flashes and you think its great, but its not, he just show that when you are creative with thermate you can get all kind of effects. If he wants his experiments to have meaning, he has to explain which technique was used and how. Were it the regular "thermetic box cutters"? Were is the "exploding box cutters"? Were it the cylindrical cutters? He himself claim it was more likely it were the bold cutting charges. Now how does that explain the "metal flow", "high-temperature corrosive attack", "violent expulsions of dust and debris"? It doesn't at all.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Well you have said it yourself quite clearly in this statement ....the event is impossible to reproduce.....just aspects can be reproduced... so NIST reproduces aspects...they write up a hypothesis and develop models and reports to fit and conclude their hypothesis is correct.

Strange how they can go about such a technique yet when someone says explosives is a reasonable hypothesis and goes about showing how it could be hypothetically correct it does not count.

As for you comments about the evidence of Explosives...There is alot of evidence for it and you have been party to many of these threads...but you choose to only accept one hypothetical analysis.

Do i need to point out to you what many others have done so YET again.....I don't believe i will waste my time because you do not look at what gets shown to you..you just give quick time rebuttles supporting only one idea.

Now lets see,we do a hypothesis...then we do experimentation and data collection then we write a conclusion...NOW key point....does the Conclusion have to suppot the hypothesis...NO of course not that is why it is a hypothesis in the first place, is it not?.

now as for Cole...his hypothesis is....DID THE NAT GEO program show the truth.
through experimentation what can he conclude.
He concluded that yes...it is possible...(with a low grade thermate) to do what the NAT GEO program tried to show was an Impossibility.

did nat geo try different configurations in their experimentation....NO

they put a simple....uncompacted bunch of thermite into a reversed shirt (laughable) and said look thermite could not cut steel...but you would just accept that with your brilliant deductive reasoning that you show over and over in here.

but do not worry i will be submitting a paper for peer review soon...and we will see how it goes...who knows mabye it too will be accepted by people whom see past all the inconsistancies in the NIST paper.

so tell you what...you write a paper backing up the failing Bazant paper....and see what happens....because your supporting a paper that was written to make model to fit what happened but does not support what actually occured.

I have been doing some more video analysis's and some more photograhic analysis of the steel ...but one thing i did come across....i found some of the original photos that NIST used in their Reports...and you too could do this....but guess what...the colors were enhanced....the fires in the originals were not anywhere as Orange as in the originals....so i have to ask myself...why would they do this.

i will post them in here shortly. Honesty seems to be something that NIST decided wasn't to be used in this case.
edit on 073131p://f31Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Strange how they can go about such a technique yet when someone says explosives is a reasonable hypothesis and goes about showing how it could be hypothetically correct it does not count.


"Explosives" isn't a hypothesis. Which type of explosives, where were they placed, how were they placed there, how were they detonated and in which sequence, why did they make the collapsed look like it did. None of that is explained.



As for you comments about the evidence of Explosives...There is alot of evidence for it and you have been party to many of these threads...but you choose to only accept one hypothetical analysis.


So far there only is one hypothetical analysis. The evidence for explosives is extremely weak. No visible and audible blasts or detonation sequence, no characteristic damage to the debris, no left overs of the detonation mechanisms.


now as for Cole...his hypothesis is....DID THE NAT GEO program show the truth.
through experimentation what can he conclude.
He concluded that yes...it is possible...(with a low grade thermate) to do what the NAT GEO program tried to show was an Impossibility.

did nat geo try different configurations in their experimentation....NO


So his hypothesis was that National Geographic was wrong? Who cares?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

As an electrician, you might not understand this but I will explain it again, simply.
1. Jones claims thermite.
2. Cole used thermate,.
3. Thermate is a variation of thermite with additives to specifically cut metal.
4. It is different than thermite which is not made to specifically cut metal but is often used to weld or repair metal.
5. Cole used something that behaves differently than what Jones claims and, consequently, proved only that thermate does what it is designed to do.
6. Many want to link the Jones claim with the Cole demo but that is not correct.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well lets see ANOK, now you are here arguing that thermate was used on the WTC buildings. Ok fine, but didnt I just see you arguing that explosive charges and controlled demolition was used to bring down WTC7? Why not thermate?

And while we are at it, as Pteridine has been saying, Jones is claiming to have found some nano-paint on thermite at the WTC. Cole used thermate. I understand your arguments ANOK, but I mean, you guys are all over the road with CD nonsense. Here you are arguing that thermate may have been used because some guy demonstrates how steel is cut with thermate, an item that is specifically USED for cutting steel. That is more of a "no duh" revelation. Then I am going to see you on the WTC7 threads vehemently arguing that it was controlled demolition with large explosives that brought down 7. Then with the WTC Towers, I see you arguing how just how did the WTC manage to collapse into dust and symmetrically through a path of most resistance, unless resistance was removed ahead of it. I have a good memory of your past posts ANOK, and its starting to confuse me.

So using logic here, are you now suggesting that thermate was planted on ever floor and every connection below the collapse initiation zone, or that it was a duo of thermate and explosives? But then that puts you at odds with Jones' nano-paint on thermite idea which he never mentions thermate.

And please dont insult me by holding my hand here and trying to explain something which none of you guys can even agree on together. Was it demo charges? Was it thermite? Thermate? I'm shown a video of a guy using thermate to cut steel. Whoopdedo. That is what it was used for. I dont see how it can be used in a controlled demolition to cause the building to fall symmetrically like you like to harp on and on about. Have you ever stopped and thought about exactly what you are arguing? You are complaining that the WTC buildings should have given resistance on all lower floors not affected by the fires and damage. That would mean slower collapse, according to your "physics" knowledge. This means to you, that resistance was somehow removed ahead of the collapse wave of the top of the building. Ok, just how then do you propose that this thermate was used to bring down the WTC Towers? Didnt you notice how much work would have been required to rig up each floor, or for that matter every other floor, to set up the thermate cuts as this guy has shown? And the fact that not a soul noticed a thing (including building engineers, PA personnel, custodians, workers, etc) of people tearing out walls and exposing columns and floor trusses to plant all this. Oh and then lets not forget the "controlled" part. How did they manage to set them off in order to "remove resistance" just ahead of the collapse above?



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Actually no one is all over the road here...the reason Cole used Thermate...if you did watch the video....is because Thermite...especially Nano Thermite is not easy for the average Joe to come by now is it?.
now the point is showing that people are willing to believe a organization such as the Nat Geo program blindly but Cole was able to show a much lesser volitile substance such as Thermate could cut steel....people are not saying thermate was used at all.
So if that is a typical way of derailing what is being said...then go ahead and try...but most people do realize what is being said because they will look and follow a thread.
now also if the thread is being read, it is mostly stating what did not bring the buildings down....and as gets pointed out over and over...both the NIST report and Bazant's Report had retractions put forward and had to be revised because of people reviewing it and pointing out the errors within it.
just as Steven Jones' paper has pointed out yet another 14 points of faults within the NIST analysis.
you pointed out a bunch of sites to go look at...i have gone and looked at them....but many of them dicuss trusses in roof systems...which really do not apply because where the fires took place in actually all three buildings there was massive areas where the heat could be conducted away from where the origins of the fires were.
Steel is a fabulous conducter of heat and it rises...hmmmm....the towers were like huge heat sinks.....the hat truss alone would have acted as a thermal conductor drawing heat away from the source of the fires.
as for was there the possibilitiy that explosives were used....it is definately a possibility...that is what is being said....is the only prabable cause of the collapse due to fires or the impacts or the combination of both....not necessarily.
but no matter...the NIST report and the Bazant paper are being torn to shreds.....So One day other avenues just might actually get looked at...shame though that evidence of a crime scene were so promptly destroyed.

edit on 043131p://f17Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043131p://f43Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The hypothesis is how the explosives could cut steel...but yet again did you choose to listen....nope.

And your statemnet of Cole proving Nat Geo wrong....hmmmm what is the title of the thread....so why are you here then...only to derail it it.

You see i need not use the typical tactics of breakking down posts into little disjointed bits and argue single line statements. You my friend do nothing to prove anything or back up your statements...you have shown your ignorance...with statements and then conntradict yourself....the whole thread is about Cole disproving NAT Geo or did you get so involved in your own world and forget what the title of the thread was.

also as stated there isn't any need to show you anymore on the possibility of explosives as it has been done over and over and when people ask you to show examples of what your saying you do not...When you said here is a great vid and it's the best view...i took it upon myself to analyse it and show you from you own recomendation how it actually worked....which i thanked you and said it will benifit others as no matter what you will not acknowledge it...but also dont worry i have even analysed it more and will present that too when i get more time.
Also i said that these things take time for people to present...and when i come back i will present it in a form from myself...not from just going and copying and pasting someone elses work...that analysis i did on that video was my own...not anyone elses's
like i also say i am working on a model that will show how the building reacts when the core is comprimised...because that is what i propose happened....and we will see if it does fit the way the buildings came down...and even if it doesn't i will still present it....because that is what should be done.
Now as i had shown previously...and am not going to post again...as you just can go back and look...
The Nist model for Building 7 shows their model...now did building 7 fall as the model shows in the NIST report...NOT ONE LITTLE BIT.....so as a professional...do you know what i would have to conclude....THE MODEL IS WRONG.....so therefore i would have to go back and look at other possibilties as to what may have brought the building down in such a fashion.

Did NIST do hard work in their research and testing...hell yes....now just because people do hard work on something does thatmake it functional....No.

Did Bazant write a decent paper on progressive collapse...yes...does it apply to what happened in the towers...Not one little bit.

but as i have also said...does it matter if i convince you of one little thing...not one bit...does it matter if people reading this thread learn some things and possibly go off and do some other work to figure out what really occured in the buildings...yes.

The point of this thread is it showed how a national program LIED to the public...IT manipulated peoples thoughts into believing that thermite could not possibly cut steel....So once again....many thanks to John Cole for showing otherwise.







edit on 043131p://f47Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join