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: 55
420
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
Shouldn't we be concerned about the incompetence and bureaucratic infighting of the investigation, too?


Which investigation? The NIST report, even with flaws, better explains the events than any CD theory.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

The entire investigation from securing the crime scene to prosecuting those found responsible.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

The only reason there is no evidence is because it wasn't looked for. And no, I'm not one of those suckers. Nice ad hom by the way.


The guys at Fresh Kills weren't looking for money, but $78,318.47 was recovered.

So were aprox. 4,000 personal photographs.

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

Thermite leaves big, bold evidence that can be seen with the naked eye. I wonder why all those members of the ATF, FBI, etc. that were there never noticed this?


Originally posted by Nutter
At least it would be a thorough investigation then. Unlike the CGI investigation that NIST performed.


You consider doing lab experiments with scale portions of trusses "CGI"? Cool. Sorry about your misconception.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
The guys at Fresh Kills weren't looking for money, but $78,318.47 was recovered.


Really? I was under the impression that they were looking for personal effects. Which money is considered part of.


Recovery is a traveling exhibition that documents the
historic project at the Fresh Kills Landfill that was in
operation from September 2001 to July 2002 to
recover human remains, personal objects, and material
evidence from the collapse of the World Trade Center.



So were aprox. 4,000 personal photographs.

www.nysm.nysed.gov...


Again. Personal affects.


Thermite leaves big, bold evidence that can be seen with the naked eye.


Not according to National Geographic.



Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.


I'm guessing you are going to join pteridine in contradicting Nat Geo too?


I wonder why all those members of the ATF, FBI, etc. that were there never noticed this?


Probably because "it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes".


You consider doing lab experiments with scale portions of trusses "CGI"? Cool. Sorry about your misconception.


And what did their lab experiments produce? If they produced the effect that they wanted (collapse from fire), then why did they have to resort to amping up the variables in the computer simulation?
edit on 19-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well this is unbelievable if it is true. Is there any evidence that this really happened other than what has been written so far?

VERY interesting.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by punctual
 


I agree, it is interesting but I'm still not convinced.

I may not venture into the 9/11 section much because I believe Truthers in particular will find a conspiracy in everything and argue a fact as a cover up or disinfo but I had to just to check the video.

Looks good, nice recreation but again, if you look hard enough you'll find your wild theories in practically anything.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
I may not venture into the 9/11 section much because I believe Truthers in particular will find a conspiracy in everything and argue a fact as a cover up or disinfo but I had to just to check the video.

Looks good, nice recreation but again, if you look hard enough you'll find your wild theories in practically anything.


Don't venture in the 9-11 section much? You've been an ATS member for a week.

No, 'truthers' do not find a conspiracy in everything. If you really took the time to go through the posts with no bias, IGNORING the 'wild theories' like space beams, you will see there is plenty of evidence for what we claim.

I guess it's becoming fashionable now to simply dismiss 'truthers' without question due to the recent press?

BTW even if it was terrorists it's still a conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Interview with Jeff Farrer Physicist on the thermate. He explains why the sulfur could not have been the gypsum boards.

In three parts...







www.bentham.org...
edit on 1/19/2011 by ANOK because: Zapped by Space Beams



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
FEMA appendix C, iron in the steel was melted at temperatures higher than open-atmosphere fires could accomplish,


Incorrect. Open atmosphere fires can and will burn very very hot. Many over 1800 deg. F.


1800 F is 982 C. The steel itself was heated to around 1000 C according to FEMA appendix C. That normally would not be hot enough to melt steel, but because of this mysterious form of "corrosion" where tiny particles of sulfur penetrated the grain boundaries of the steel and caused the iron to melt, well you already get the idea. It's not unusual, and you can't melt steel in your back yard like that. If you think you can then I'd love to see you put your money where your mouth is and do it for us some time, in the same way Jon Cole is doing this stuff in his backyard to debunk you lot.


Great videos above explaining why the sulfur could not have come from the drywall. Going to have to take some notes myself.






so oxygen-starved fires would not be able to do it either.


Strawman. None of the fires were "oxygen-starved". I don't know where you get this idea.


For one, from the testimony of clean-up workers that fires didn't flare up from the debris pile until they exposed thermal hot spots underground to external oxygen.



It would have to be something burning that didn't require oxygen, and that's just the temperature requirements, not even considering trying to match the rest of the evidence in FEMA app. C.


EVERYTHING that burns requires oxygen to burn. EVERYTHING. Without oxygen, it will NOT burn.


Exactly. So explain this to "pteridine," who was arguing this:


Thanks for the note about insulation not creating heat. That is always good to know. Underground fires burn slowly because of oxygen starvation and such fires are reducing in nature, as I explained previously. The slow combustion keeps things hot for a long period of time based on the fuel available. This is why the rubble was hot for many weeks after the collapse and not because of therm*te reacting, as some would like to believe.




You really need to read the paper from WPI professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr.

Here is a simple link.
www.wpi.edu...


Okay, I read it, now what was the point you were trying to convey?

They didn't understand why steel was melted. They mentioned the FEMA report, appendix C, which I am familiar with. They said the sulfur may have come from acid rain, burning rubbers, plastics, or even ocean salt, causing the steel to melt. Then it ends with a note saying that FEMA is calling for further investigation of it.

So what were you trying to point out?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What did Jeff-the-physicist say? Did he say why, as coauthor, he didn't explain things in the paper and tried to waste 35 minutes explaining it?
If these guys had done the proper analyses to begin with, this would have been settled in 2009 and Jones would either be the biggest whistle blower on the planet or would have found another hobby.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What did Jeff-the-physicist say?


Are you afraid to watch the videos yourself?

Check out 12:30 of the first video. It should be educational for you.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Good video.

Were any columns found with the attachments necessary to hold the thermite in place?

There surely would be some photos that would show something that could be a thermite holder shouldn't there?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thanks for the tip on the section of interest. I couldn't take too much of this guy. As I expected, Jeff thinks that the only way to get sulfur into the steel is through thermolysis of the CaSO4 to Ca, S, and 2O2 and then subsequent reaction with the steel.
Remember when I told you that at about 400-500 C, CaSO4 can be reduced to CaS in a reducing atmosphere? Jeff didn't know it either. How about a reaction of CaSO4 with Fe as a reducing agent? Reaction of H2S with the steel? Reaction of SO2 or SO3 with the steel?
In one 4x10' sheet of 5/8 firecore drywall there is about 20 pounds of sulfur as CaSO4.2H2O. Take a guess at the number of sheets of drywall used in the WTC [double layer around core plus all interior walls] and multiply by 20 pounds to get an idea of the potential sulfur available.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
There surely would be some photos that would show something that could be a thermite holder shouldn't there


Well seeing as most of the stuff inside the towers were never found, including more than half the bodies, steel floor pans, concrete etc., etc., etc., I would say no.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Remember when I told you that at about 400-500 C, CaSO4 can be reduced to CaS in a reducing atmosphere? Jeff didn't know it either. How about a reaction of CaSO4 with Fe as a reducing agent? Reaction of H2S with the steel? Reaction of SO2 or SO3 with the steel?


You're not paying attention. The steel with molten iron had been heated to the region of 1000 C. Even getting sulfur at 400-500 C through your speculative reactions will not go any further in explaining how that could have resulted in the samples, without you having to make up a bunch more coincidental theories of how cakes will magically create themselves out of the ingredients by themselves in the right environment.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Wildbob77
There surely would be some photos that would show something that could be a thermite holder shouldn't there


Well seeing as most of the stuff inside the towers were never found, including more than half the bodies, steel floor pans, concrete etc., etc., etc., I would say no.


Bodies don't stand up to well to being crushed by multi-ton beams, concrete, and other materials.

Also, there were plenty of steel floorpans found.

i63.photobucket.com...

Oh look, a piece of steel floorpan!

If only I had another picture of steel floorpans...

i63.photobucket.com...

Oh lookie here! More steel floorpans....




i63.photobucket.com...

Oh look, I found a mail cart or food cart of some kind. I thought everything was destroyed?
Are you seriously claiming that no concrete was found?

Oh look, concrete!!

edit on 20-1-2011 by FDNY343 because: Add another link to steel floorpans



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Remember when I told you that at about 400-500 C, CaSO4 can be reduced to CaS in a reducing atmosphere? Jeff didn't know it either. How about a reaction of CaSO4 with Fe as a reducing agent? Reaction of H2S with the steel? Reaction of SO2 or SO3 with the steel?


You're not paying attention. The steel with molten iron had been heated to the region of 1000 C. Even getting sulfur at 400-500 C through your speculative reactions will not go any further in explaining how that could have resulted in the samples, without you having to make up a bunch more coincidental theories of how cakes will magically create themselves out of the ingredients by themselves in the right environment.


So, you didn't read the paper written by Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr of WPI did you?

Heres a hint.

"JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society" might be a good place to start. Might cost you 20-30 bucks, but hey, it's a business. No, I will not provide you with a copy. That is stealing money from the journal.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Remember when I told you that at about 400-500 C, CaSO4 can be reduced to CaS in a reducing atmosphere? Jeff didn't know it either. How about a reaction of CaSO4 with Fe as a reducing agent? Reaction of H2S with the steel? Reaction of SO2 or SO3 with the steel?


You're not paying attention. The steel with molten iron had been heated to the region of 1000 C. Even getting sulfur at 400-500 C through your speculative reactions will not go any further in explaining how that could have resulted in the samples, without you having to make up a bunch more coincidental theories of how cakes will magically create themselves out of the ingredients by themselves in the right environment.


You weren't payinig attention to the video at the point you referenced. Jeff's idea that CaSO4 had to be heated above the melting point of steel to provide the sulfur is incorrect.
Now, all we need account for is 1000C which is within the capabilities of an insulated fire. Because only some beams suffered the erosion damage, their environment must have been the exception. It would seem that fire is the only possibility for long term heat as thermite containing materials would have readily reacted and cooled. Thermite would tend to add to the total mass rather than take from it



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
It would seem that fire is the only possibility for long term heat as thermite containing materials would have readily reacted and cooled.


Let's see.

Fire gets burried, insulated and burned other materials for weeks to months.

Thermitic material while on fire gets burried, insulated and burned other materials for weeks to months.

Yup. There's NO WAY that thermite could do that. It HAD to be fire.

Oh wait, thermite produces fire.


edit on 20-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by pteridine
It would seem that fire is the only possibility for long term heat as thermite containing materials would have readily reacted and cooled.


Let's see.

Fire gets burried, insulated and burned other materials for weeks to months.

Thermitic material while on fire gets burried, insulated and burned other materials for weeks to months.

Yup. There's NO WAY that thermite could do that. It HAD to be fire.

Oh wait, thermite produces fire.



What exactly are you claiming? Are you saying thermite was necessary to start the underground fires or that thermite was doing a slow burn and that was the underground fires?




top topics



 
420
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join