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: 56
420
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What exactly are you claiming?

What exactly are you claiming? That thermite doesn't burn at 1000C or that it would not catch anything else on fire?


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?


When did I say "necessary" to start the fires?

You are the one who said that the underground fires couldn't have been from thermite. All I said was that thermite burns and produces fire. Thus negating that the underground fires most definately were not started by thermite.

Let's recap.

Thermite burns hot enough to start things combusting.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Why would you need thermite to start the fires? Fires were burning at the time of collapse and there were many floors of unburned fuel in the rubble. Fires do not require thermite to start them or propagate. I was asking your position because previously, a few posters had the strange idea that all the heat was due to thermite. Jones paper dispelled some of that as his red chips do not stay lit.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:14 PM
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.


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


Huh? You think thermite maintained the fires in the debris pile?

I'm confused......

Will you clarify for me? How does thermite fit into the overall picture? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by pteridine
What exactly are you claiming?

What exactly are you claiming? That thermite doesn't burn at 1000C or that it would not catch anything else on fire?


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?


When did I say "necessary" to start the fires?

You are the one who said that the underground fires couldn't have been from thermite. All I said was that thermite burns and produces fire. Thus negating that the underground fires most definately were not started by thermite.

Let's recap.

Thermite burns hot enough to start things combusting.


I am still unclear as to what you are getting at.

BTW, so does horse and cow dung. Point?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
you see i will no longer argue semantics i will just show anomalies...now between this first video and the Sauret Video there are two things that raise alarms bells to me...

approx mark 3:39 electronic interference then approx 10 -12 secs later...hmmm...tower falls.



approx mark 18 camera shakes....then hmmm 10-12 secs later tower falls....yet the cam does not shake during collapse....strange to me.



Now you see just another strange event that says...something is up here.....what would cause this....EMP possibly...you see when it comes to Jon Cole he debunks what Nat Geo Says...but as i have said before there are many avenues to look at....But the OS.....come on....three steel structures...succumb to fires...remember never forget building Seven.....i find it strange people would believe something that has never happened before in the time since steel skyscapers have been on this planet....yet they will believe 19 less than intelligent terorists could concieve a plan as this....had the financial backing....got through security...ALL successfully...left bags behind that convienently did not make the plane....subdued four planes' pilots.....successfully hit their targets for the most part....yet we truthers are the weird ones.....but as i find these anomalies as i do my work i will keep presenting them.


edit on 033131p://f05Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033131p://f11Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Bodies don't stand up to well to being crushed by multi-ton beams, concrete, and other materials.


Human bone is quite strong and should not have been crushed beyond recognition. We're talking bodies that did not have even a tiny piece of bone, nothing at all to identify. People do not normally completely disappear from aircraft crashes, or building collapses.


Also, there were plenty of steel floorpans found.


Are you kidding me?

I see a small piece of what could have been part of a floor pan in one of those pics.

Problem with that is if the floors did the crushing then there should be at least ONE complete un-crushed floor. Unless you can explain what crushed the last floor?

(I thought you were going to turn out to be a typical 'debunker' who just dismisses everything).
edit on 1/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, you didn't read the paper written by Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr of WPI did you?


So you didn't read my response to your post did you?

Here's a hint:


Originally posted by bsbray11
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, 20 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


Not considering your response. Even though you may technically have another way the drywall can break down, you don't have one that fits the actual circumstances, so it's irrelevant. You're talking reactions that occur at 400-500 C when the sample was heated to 1000 C when the corrosion happened according to FEMA.


Now, all we need account for is 1000C which is within the capabilities of an insulated fire.


Once again insulation does not create extra heat or temperatures. You don't go from 400-500C to 1000C just from insulation.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


Not considering your response. Even though you may technically have another way the drywall can break down, you don't have one that fits the actual circumstances, so it's irrelevant. You're talking reactions that occur at 400-500 C when the sample was heated to 1000 C when the corrosion happened according to FEMA.


Now, all we need account for is 1000C which is within the capabilities of an insulated fire.


Once again insulation does not create extra heat or temperatures. You don't go from 400-500C to 1000C just from insulation.


You may not be aware of this, but on the way to 1000C you'd have to pass through 500C. Further, many reactions that occur at 500 also occur at 800 and 1000.
It seems that your main argument is that the underground fires couldn't reach 1000 C. Is this correct?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Human bone is quite strong and should not have been crushed beyond recognition.


I can do that with my 22oz. California Framing hammer, why do you think that a multi ton beam (some weighing 700 pounds per linear foot) couldn't?


Originally posted by ANOK

We're talking bodies that did not have even a tiny piece of bone, nothing at all to identify. People do not normally completely disappear from aircraft crashes, or building collapses.


Nope, most people don't, you're correct.

Do a little experiment. Go to your local put supply store. Get one of those dog chew bones made out of cow bones. Go home, get a hammer. Hit it. Tell me what happens. Now, take a sledge hammer, and hit it again. Do this dozens of times. Now, sweep all that up, put it in a bucket with dirt, concrete, ash from a fireplace, and other burned organics, and you tell me what you can positively identify.

Good luck.



Originally posted by ANOK

Are you kidding me?
I see a small piece of what could have been part of a floor pan in one of those pics.


And that is just one picture. I am sure if you look through this album s63.photobucket.com... you can find some more.

Give it a shot. I bet there are. In fact, I know there are.



Originally posted by ANOK
Problem with that is if the floors did the crushing then there should be at least ONE complete un-crushed floor. Unless you can explain what crushed the last floor?


Huh? How do you figure?


Originally posted by ANOK
(I thought you were going to turn out to be a typical 'debunker' who just dismisses everything).


Thanks, I will take that as a compliment. I am quite knowledgable in some aspects of September 11th.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, you didn't read the paper written by Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr of WPI did you?


So you didn't read my response to your post did you?

Here's a hint:


Originally posted by bsbray11
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?


So, did you read the paper that I told you to read? IT explains the process. In detail.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You may not be aware of this, but on the way to 1000C you'd have to pass through 500C.


Yeah, for how long? Your whole theory depends on so many variables coming together, that are each absurd and unlikely on their own, let alone taken all together, I can't imagine that you've actually thought this whole spew through.


It seems that your main argument is that the underground fires couldn't reach 1000 C. Is this correct?


Do you have yet another theory on how 1000 C could be achieved in an area with limited air circulation, and limited fuel for combustion (since steel and concrete dust aren't fuel) ?

Yes, of course you do.

Is it remotely likely or does it even make sense? Not that I've seen so far.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, did you read the paper that I told you to read? IT explains the process. In detail.


Are you talking about a different page than the one you linked, that I responded to above? Because the page you linked me to, that I just responded to, just regurgitated the FEMA report, appendix C.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You may not be aware of this, but on the way to 1000C you'd have to pass through 500C.


Your whole theory depends on so many variables coming together, that are each absurd and unlikely on their own, let alone taken all together, I can't imagine that you've actually thought this whole spew through.


Your quote perfectly describes the entire "truther" movement, you included. "Absurd and unlikely" is the best three word description of any inside job theory.
We have thermitic material that is painted on and that won't stay ignited. If it could react, it would only warm the beams a few degrees. Mininukes that convert everything to dust. Pentagon flyovers with timed explosions or a missile strike. Planes that have been substituted while origiinal passengers are assassinated and placed in the wreckage.
You so desire the conclusion that you are blind to the absurdities in your own "spew." Wake up to reality, BS.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you have yet another theory on how 1000 C could be achieved in an area with limited air circulation, and limited fuel for combustion (since steel and concrete dust aren't fuel) ?

Yes, of course you do.


Again, where do you get the idea that there was "limited" air circulation? You do realize there were many many voids and tunnels withing the debris pile? Including subway lines.

You also realize that 220 acres of office furniture (desks, chairs, plastics, wood, paper, etc. etc. etc.) are all fuels and will burn quite easily?


Originally posted by bsbray11

Is it remotely likely or does it even make sense? Not that I've seen so far.


So you don't think office contents will burn? Holy **** alert the press!! Fire departments are useless, as are sprinklers in buildings, and fire extinguishers.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
So, did you read the paper that I told you to read? IT explains the process. In detail.


Are you talking about a different page than the one you linked, that I responded to above? Because the page you linked me to, that I just responded to, just regurgitated the FEMA report, appendix C.


Yes, please try to follow along. I'll give you a hint. (Robert Sisson Jr. of Worchester Polytecnic Institute. One of, if not arguably, the TOP fire science schools in the country)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you talking about a different page than the one you linked, that I responded to above? Because the page you linked me to, that I just responded to, just regurgitated the FEMA report, appendix C.


Yes, please try to follow along. I'll give you a hint. (Robert Sisson Jr. of Worchester Polytecnic Institute. One of, if not arguably, the TOP fire science schools in the country)


If you want to give me a real "hint" then why don't you link me to what you're talking about instead of cryptically giving me the names of schools and expecting me to go on a wild goose chase for you?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Again, where do you get the idea that there was "limited" air circulation? You do realize there were many many voids and tunnels withing the debris pile? Including subway lines.


You mean this subway?



www.life.com...


This subway was where all the air was coming from, to create what you must say was equivalent to a blast furnace to reach those temperatures?:



www.life.com...




www.life.com...




On top of that, they were isolated in relation to the vast majority of Ground Zero, because it's not like they were a massive open area underneath the whole complex.


You also realize that 220 acres of office furniture (desks, chairs, plastics, wood, paper, etc. etc. etc.) are all fuels and will burn quite easily?


Let's see how many photos you can find of a single desk or chair from the rubble pile. Cabinet, any large piece of furniture, or how much flammable material in general compared to steel and concrete dust. Come on now, don't be bashful.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your quote perfectly describes the entire "truther" movement, you included. "Absurd and unlikely" is the best three word description of any inside job theory.


Not by the looks of how you are "defending" the official story on here.


We have thermitic material that is painted on and that won't stay ignited.



We cannot determine
at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted
from the application method or the manner of reaction.
While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive.


www.bentham.org...

"won't stay ignited".. Again, you are looking at the remains of a substance after its intended use.


Mininukes that convert everything to dust. Pentagon flyovers with timed explosions or a missile strike. Planes that have been substituted while origiinal passengers are assassinated and placed in the wreckage.


Nice fallacies there. I notice you have a large collection you like displaying regularly. Have I said any of that? No.

What separates your reality and my reality, is that my reality is based only on facts, and the official story is based on none. You always try to paint me as coming here to make positive claims, but you should know better than that by now. Fallacious reasoning seems to be the only corner you have left to hide in.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you want to give me a real "hint" then why don't you link me to what you're talking about instead of cryptically giving me the names of schools and expecting me to go on a wild goose chase for you?


I've given you the information needed.

I have taken the liberty of emailing Dr. Sission to see if he would provide me another copy.

I will update you with any information.

PS. It blasts your delusions to pieces.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join