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.

 

Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Hi All,

I know there have been plenty of posts about thermite, but this guy's great...he did some solid experiments and shared his results on the YouToob...this made me smile. My apologies if this has already been posted.

Thermite Cutting Steel

Keep the above video in mind when recalling that the Naudet film caught charges cutting a slice mark in the wall after the alleged jet had already passed through it...see a still shot below:


letsrollforums.com...




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Already a thread about the thermite here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=10051700#pid10051700



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Hi All,

I know there have been plenty of posts about thermite, but this guy's great...he did some solid experiments and shared his results on the YouToob...this made me smile. My apologies if this has already been posted.

Thermite Cutting Steel

Keep the above video in mind when recalling that the Naudet film caught charges cutting a slice mark in the wall after the alleged jet had already passed through it...see a still shot below:


letsrollforums.com...


Explosives don't make flames. They make loud booms and bright flashes of light.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Cole used thermate, designed to cut steel, not thermite. None of this was found at the WTC site.

He could have demonstrated other things used to cut steel such as hacksaws or files. Given his inside-the-beam demo, he could have shown how a socket set could have stealthily unbolted the column connections with no evidence whatsoever. I like this idea and plan to write a book or two on it to make a little extra cash. I'm thinking of calling it "Unscrewing Loose Change" or "Loose Nuts."



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Had a big thread on this not too long ago:

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly reproduces WTC anomalies


Can't debunk him so you're just reduced to making your bad jokes now eh pterry?

That's how it goes when there is nothing to debunk about slicing through a steel column with thermate. Well then again you could always claim the video's a CGI hoax or come up with some semantics to bicker about.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You probably missed this but Cole used thermate in bulk. Thermate is designed to cut steel. Cole demonstrated that it can do what it is designed to do. No thermate was found at the scene.

The demo has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I posted his own title to keep things accurate. It's the evidence he supplies I'm interested in, not his terminology.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


What this is is corroborating evidence that can explain the sliced columns on the WTC as well as the flaming gash visibly being carved in the Naudet film.

It is a better explanation than a wing.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You probably missed this but Cole used thermate in bulk.


Yeah a whole bulk of 5 pounds or less. I guess he used too much by your standards therefore he is wrong.



Cole demonstrated that it can do what it is designed to do. No thermate was found at the scene.


I could refer you back to FEMA appendix C for residues exactly mirroring a eutectic reaction such as thermate occurring on WTC steel. But then I guess you'd go back to scrambling for a semantic argument dressed in a smug attitude and with the ultimate air of pompousness.


The demo has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.


Aside from the similarities like producing explosions, producing streams of bright yellow/orange molten metal, producing the same thing seen in FEMA appendix C, etc.

Yeah, besides all that stuff, you're right.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



the Naudet film caught charges cutting a slice mark in the wall


No , it didn't .

Why do people persist in perpetuating these lies ?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



evidence that can explain the sliced columns


I think I know already , but go ahead and tell me what sliced columns you are referring to .



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReRun
reply to post by Yankee451
 



the Naudet film caught charges cutting a slice mark in the wall


No , it didn't .

Why do people persist in perpetuating these lies ?


Actually it does. I have linked to still shots from another forum and I've studied the video itself frame by frame. I am happy to discuss it with anyone who has done the same.

If you have the DVD, take a look at Leslie Raphael's work.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


You should post that here.

There is plenty in the Naudet footage alone that is damning to the OS. Just the fact that the lobby glass was blown out, and people were laying outside on the ground with their skin burned off but not injured from any fall, and tiles were hanging off the ceiling and elevators blown out there. And then firefighters talking about the floors coming down "boom boom boom boom boom," "as if there were detonators."

I suppose it could be too easy to miss all of that when you're busy waving your flag and crying along to the rest of it.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Raphael's piece rivals the size of War and Peace...way too big for the short attention spans on this forum.

I have linked to it before, but it's not for the faint of heart...he goes for the jugular and names names.

frankresearch.info...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ReRun
 







posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


As an aside, notice that most of the columns are still straight. Several of the exterior cladding pieces on the lower left lean into the building, but most of them are severed and aren't bowed in, and a few are bowed out.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You probably missed this but Cole used thermate in bulk.


Yeah a whole bulk of 5 pounds or less. I guess he used too much by your standards therefore he is wrong.



Cole demonstrated that it can do what it is designed to do. No thermate was found at the scene.


I could refer you back to FEMA appendix C for residues exactly mirroring a eutectic reaction such as thermate occurring on WTC steel. But then I guess you'd go back to scrambling for a semantic argument dressed in a smug attitude and with the ultimate air of pompousness.


The demo has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.


Aside from the similarities like producing explosions, producing streams of bright yellow/orange molten metal, producing the same thing seen in FEMA appendix C, etc.

Yeah, besides all that stuff, you're right.


Why do you think "bulk" would have a quantity attached? Bulk in this case means bulk and not painted on, a la Jonesy. But, then again, a thin layer of red paint wouldn't cause anything to collapse by CD, would it?

You could refer to many things but there is still that lack of evidence problem that plagues you. You do love the "eutectic" part, which also proves nothing related to CD.

If you want pompous and smug, read some of your previous posts.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Keep in mind that no matter what we saw on the TeeVee, a jet wing cannot cut steel like that, so something else must explain it. We can speculate all we like, but speculating that a plane did the impossible should be an obvious waste of time.

So what can explain it?

As far as the placement of the material for the gash, that could be accomplished by placing it between the cladding and the column. There are any number of ways to then get the aluminum cladding not blown away in the explosion to bend inwards, just use your imagination. If this was a big movie set, how would set engineers accomplish it? Not too tough, and if you get newsmen to say it is so on the TeeVee, who would challenge it?

Far fetched? Absolutely audacious if you ask me, and I wouldn't ever consider it myself, so yeah, far fetched and absurd. So absurd that people would believe the IMPOSSIBLE before they'd believe the absurd; no matter how possible it is.

Isn't that the definition of the "Big Lie"?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine
 



Keep in mind that no matter what we saw on the TeeVee, a jet wing cannot cut steel like that, so something else must explain it.


Why can't a jet wing cut steel like that? Do not equate a structure that supports the aircraft with an aluminum beer can.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Do not equate a structure like the WTC with anything less than a mountain of steel.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join