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: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


This has become a complete joke. No, not the video which is yet more solid debunking of the lies perpetrated in the official 9/11 report. But the simple fact that there is so MUCH evidence that disproved the entire notion that these buildings came down by themselves that it's a shame, and an outcry that these physicists, engineers and chemists are actually having to go to these lengths and waste this much time to prove to some that those buildings could not have possibly come down just from naturally collapsing from a plane crash before we truly looked into it. We should have looked into all possible hypothesis that were brought up on reasonable suspicion from the beginning. It's like throwing a dead man's body full of bullet holes out the window and we investigate the murder based on him dying from hitting the ground, completing ignoring the investigation of murder by the way of a bullet and gun. RIDICULOUS!

The only way a building can demolish itself in the manner the twin towers did is by blowing up or cutting through the resisting structure from the floor underneath, just before the floor above hits it. The only way building 7 could have crashed in that manner is by blowing up the entire internal structure at every floor simultaneously or from bottom up. This can ONLY be explained by controlled demolition. Period. This has been evident and if you were not convinced the day you first saw this occur then you should just type up the words "evidence 9/11" into Google and read through the articles yourselves.

There has already also been reported evidence not of just the by-products of thermate but more significantly nano-thermite.

www.ae911truth.net...

But even if you don't believe these theories and evidence(which is clearly still in process and the people working on them aren't just your average nut jobs), the biggest point here is that it is not these people and experts that should be spending time trying to piece this thing together on the internet in the first place. It should have been them, both government and experts, and the explanation should have taken into account ALL possible questions so that it would have been satisfactory, especially when there are so many that doubt them. It's not the lack of answers that bothered us and that drives us. It's ignoring plausible and important questions that should have at least been addressed! Too many valid questions not addressed. Too many voices unheard.

Regardless. We should not even be discussing some of these issues anymore. We KNOW they lied. But we knew it every day after 9/11 there was one inconsistency after another. My only surprise is that it took this country 10 YEARS to get over that shell shock in order to be able to look at the facts that have been there all along? What would happen if they nuke us, our cities or our fellow citizens next? How long would the ones left behind remain frozen still in time and smitten?

If we gave them so many liberties willingly without a whimper when we knew nothing they were telling us made sense, because of these 3 buildings falling down, what are we going to give them if they demolish an entire city? Stop living in fear people! We as a notion have been victimized. It's like an abusive woman who gets abused by her husband but she repeatedly goes back for another beating while refusing to see the abuse and the lies. Just stop!

The only issue we should be discussing is how do we speed up and help the process of those demanding a new investigation. EVERYONE in this site, pro or against in the field of theories, should be supporting those wanting a new investigation BY QUALIFIED INDEPENDENT EXPERTS if you REALLY want to know what happened. You could also just call it therapy for the abused nation because that's what it would be if the truth came out, and we placed the ones which this evidence will identify in trials. Vindication would be a treatment for this nation.

My advice to you is this for now: stop believing FOX, CNN, MSNBC, TIMES, POPULAR MECHANICS, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and generally every mass media outlet that continues the propaganda(if you will notice they have been kind of silent lately on this issue) and STICK ONLY TO FACTS AND EVIDENCE BACKED BY FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD FOR PERFORMING EXPERIMENTS. Treat these channels like you do your favorite fantasy TV show because that's what they are. Who knows maybe one day they will come along and change their stance(I'm gonna love seeing that 180 and THEN I will be very terrified if the same faces are still around and somehow begin to explain their innocence). As a matter of fact just CANCEL your CABLE or SATELLITE TV. And support only the grassroots media outlets that have the guts to talk about this. Do to the mass media like they did to 9/11 truth. IGNORE THEM BACK! By now some of you should have already come to the general realization that they have been DISCREDITED!

Just do one quick search on Google for "9/11 evidence 2011", click news, and then look at the names of the websites of companies listed above that hardly ever have an article mentioning this issue, and you will get an idea of what's going on for yourself! They are missing from the debate! They aren't even supporting YOU, the one that believed them, anymore. The ones responsible have succeeded in one of their major goals which was that if you ever doubted the official story you would be terrified because you would not be able to trust anyone. You are easier to control that way and follow along with what they say. They have succeeded in that, but only temporarily. Personally, I believe in the laws of physics. The same laws used to build such buildings in the first place. Follow the laws of physics and science(YOU LEARNED THEM IN HIGH SCHOOL and if you didn't, it's not too late and simple to understand!), the ONLY laws even they cannot circumvent, and you will once again find people and sources you can trust. Question everything else.

I swear no matter the evidence, some of you act like unless it comes from FOX or CNN it can't possibly be true! It's ridiculous! Please wake up! Yes I understand how hard it must be to believe the people that you have spent all your lives listening to and trusting could have lied to you all this time, especially the "respected anchors". It's like losing a person you love, or the country you THOUGHT you had. It was a fantasy. It was hard for me too. Even now I have a hard time fighting the urge to tune in to the news to see "what's happening in the world" when I know I'm only seeing "what THEY TELL ME is happening in the world". I felt alone and isolated but I am glad I at least have a way here for now to talk to others like me and to know that I am not alone and I call out to the rest of you! We are here to support the rest of you and we need your support! We cannot do this without you. We all need each other! In fact we can count on the rest of you to scrutinize the work hence helping those independent detective become ever more scientific and accurate in their research!

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent." - J. Edgar Hoover (First Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation)

PS: We can't let this eat us up like it consumed him. He mentions the "individual". We have each other!

edit on 28-3-2011 by TakingTheRedPill because: Spelling, added points, J Edgar Hoover quote.




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

What does this mean?

Are you defending their model? Please explain how creating a 34 mm machete wing is an accurate model.


What don't you understand? The names on the top of the paper, those are the people who wrote it. You should contact them, or, I dunno, maybe write a discussion on the paper and submit it to the journal?

What part of that don't you understand?

The paper explains their assumptions, and why they did it. Sorry if you don't understand why. When you figure out the problem with modeling, let me know.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Plus, please tell the class what you witnessed with all those thousands of other eyewitnesses who saw planes on 911...you were there right? You said you even saw Jules. You remember right?

You even saw plane parts and you were going to show us all on a map of the WTC where you saw them. Don't be shy.


Oh ****, I completly forgot that I watched first hand the deaths of hundreds of my friends and fellow countryman.

Yeah, thanks for reminding me.


Well, using simple written word, as I have already done, you should be able to figure out where I was, since I already told you.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Actually, Yankee and I were discussing his claims of missiles at the WTC and not the Pentagon. He doesn't believe that the planes had enough energy to cut through the columns in spite of all the videos and evidence of such and is pretending that missiles were needed. He can't explain the airliner size and shape of the holes or how it actually worked because he, like some others, concluded "inside job" and then wandered around looking for support. There isn't any. Desperate for a conspiracy, he made up the missile theory but can't seem to explain it. He needs four launchers firing four invisible missiles that leave no smoke trails, cut the buildings to look like wing impacts and then magically explode to look like the body impacts.
edit on 3/28/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I take it you have conceded that your missile theory is bereft of any support and you are now treading water pretending that it is still viable. It is so contrived that even Judy Wood makes a better case than you do.

Your lack of response to questions concerning your missile theory concedes that planes caused the holes in the perimeter columns without the need for missiles.
edit on 3/28/2011 by pteridine because: spelling correction



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


The data are from Jones paper. If they are wrong, Jones is wrong. That they are inconsistent is plainly obvious because if they were consistent, all the values would be the same or very close. Try reading for comprehension.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I take it you have conceded that your missile theory is bereft of any support and you are now treading water pretending that it is still viable. It is so contrived that even Judy Wood makes a better case than you do.

Your lack of response to questions concerning your missile theory concedes that planes caused the holes in the perimeter columns without the need for missiles.
edit on 3/28/2011 by pteridine because: spelling correction


I'm sure you understand the rules here, which is why you're pressing this issue, right? ATS has a big stake in censorship, so lets try to follow those rules shall we?

Since you won't explain how a jet wing can cause the damage better than thermate, I look forward to your further evasions on my other threads when comparing a wing to a missile.
edit on 28-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


FDNY343,

To continue to make false claims without any facts to support them is pathological. Seek help.

Do you have a comment about how thermate can cut steel? Any comment as to why the government studies got their tests so wrong? Can you offer any explanation as to how a jet can cause the damage to the East side and the NE corner?

Yankee451



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
I'm sure you understand the rules here, which is why you're pressing this issue, right? ATS has a big stake in censorship, so lets try to follow those rules here shall we?

Since you won't explain how a jet wing can cause the damage better than thermate, I look forward to your further evasions on my other threads when comparing a wing to a missile.


What does censorship have to do with this discussion? Is this your way of trying to disengage before you have to admit that your missile theory, now suddenly including thermate, is complete tripe?

You fail to detail how a missile/thermate could accomplish the damage. You fail to provide evidence of either missiles or thermate. You fail to describe the lack of exhaust trails or launch platforms that would support this theory. You fail to describe how thermate can produce the visible damage to the WTC. You have not addressed any of these, yet you claim that the aircraft couldn't do it even though there are countless eyewitnesses to, and videos of, the aircraft doing just what you claim it couldn't.

You are afraid to defend your theory because you know it won't stand as it is. Take some time, get your theory worked out, and post it on a new thread. You already know what I am going to ask you.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes, I know what you're going to ask, and I already have two threads open for you. What are you waiting for?

Stick to the topic or take a hike.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine
 


Yes, I know what you're going to ask, and I already have two threads open for you. What are you waiting for?

Stick to the topic or take a hike.


The topic is thermate [mis-labelled thermite in the topic] and the video is of Jon Cole playing with it in his back yard. Cole demonstrates a well known action of thermate, cutting steel, but fails to provide any evidence of its use in the events of 911. Next, he will demonstrate that hacksaws can cut steel and fail to provide any evidence of their use in the events of 911. He may have a career in the offing of demonstrating all the ways that steel may cut and joints disconnected while failing to provide any evidence of their use in the events of 911.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Considering your OS doesn't need any forensic evidence when justifying the deaths of hundreds of thousands, Jon Cole is ahead of you.

I can't wait for more of your drivel here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I went to your missile thread to see what you had to say but, alas, it's now shown as a HOAX. The MODs are accurate in their assessments. Does that tell you anything about your theory, Yankee.

Knowing how important it was to you, I read some of it. You wanted tiny JSSM wings to cause the damage and then have the JSSM explode at a specific point at the same time another JSSM was doing the same thing from another direction. The JSSM wings are aluminum, too, and much less massive than the aircraft wings. The JSSM would likely explode on initial impact. The timing would also be near impossible and the absence of HE explosions and presence of fuel deflagrations sort of puts your theory away.

I can see why this quickly went into the HOAX forum.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I went to your missile thread to see what you had to say but, alas, it's now shown as a HOAX. The MODs are accurate in their assessments. Does that tell you anything about your theory, Yankee.


Yes, and it tells me more about ATS, pteridine. Why would a "conspiracy" site have a policy to relegate all threads discussing alternate explanations of the crime of the century to "hoax" status regardless how valid the evidence? Is this site just another social engineering site maintained to direct public opinion in the right direction? The best way to control the opposition is to lead it, after all. What are they afraid of?



Knowing how important it was to you, I read some of it. You wanted tiny JSSM wings to cause the damage and then have the JSSM explode at a specific point at the same time another JSSM was doing the same thing from another direction. The JSSM wings are aluminum, too, and much less massive than the aircraft wings. The JSSM would likely explode on initial impact. The timing would also be near impossible and the absence of HE explosions and presence of fuel deflagrations sort of puts your theory away.

I can see why this quickly went into the HOAX forum.


Your cowardice is noted. I have another thread on a forum reserved for serious discussions...no topic is off the table there, the evidence gets a chance to stand on its own two feet. I've invited you before, but knowing your yellow streak, I'm sure you'll hide behind ATS's "hoax" proclamation before you'd risk a real debate. Anything else to add here, or are you done?

letsrollforums.com...
edit on 28-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I note that in spite of your inability to defend your theory you still wish to argue about it. The JSSM concept is really foolish and now you have somehow included thermate also, in spite of the complete lack of evidence for either element or anything like them. Call Judy Wood now for some help.

When you have something to discuss in lieu of the confused theory you are espousing at present, I will be happy to discuss it wth you.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Once again, please take these questions to the appropriate thread.

if you've got nothing to add about Jon Cole and can add nothing to explain how a wing can better account for the damage, I look forward to continuing this discussion elsewhere.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The topic of this thread is Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Please debate the facets of the thread topic and not each other!


Please review the following threads:

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**,

YOU are responsible for your own posts.



Thank You

Argentus



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
The topic of this thread is Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Please debate the facets of the thread topic and not each other!


I think the trouble may stem from the fact that there is nothing left to "debunk" about it being possible for thermite to cut through steel.

So it took about 9 years for "debunkers" to catch up with science that was ultimately conducted in an engineer's back yard, and using common materials.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I think the trouble may stem from the fact that there is nothing left to "debunk" about it being possible for thermite to cut through steel.

So it took about 9 years for "debunkers" to catch up with science that was ultimately conducted in an engineer's back yard, and using common materials.


Too bad the stuff that he used was thermAte, which Jones et al. claim was not found, but nano-thermite.

There is certainly a prople there.......



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Of course he proved nothing with his demonstration. I responded to your earlier request when you were explaining why you couldn't analyze the thermodynamics. In the post referenced below, I have shown the analysis. It is apparent that Jones did not find thermite.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Too bad the stuff that he used was thermAte, which Jones et al. claim was not found, but nano-thermite.


You must not know what those words mean. Thermate is a form of thermite:


Thermate is a variation of thermite


en.wikipedia.org...


What Jones et. al. found was not pure thermite, ie the conventional iron oxide and aluminum only. So if your argument is that conventional thermite is a different substance entirely from thermate, then the substances Jones et. al. studied was also different from conventional thermite. It was not just iron oxide and aluminum. What they chose to call it has no bearing on that fact, though your erroneous perceptions might for you. Chemistry is chemistry no matter what names you make up to call the processes and materials. Think about it. Your argument is petty and inconsequential.


And since you haven't already noticed, it would probably help your confusion if someone pointed out to you that the terms are often used interchangeably. Maybe that's too much for you to handle. All you do to go from thermite to thermate is add a couple extra ingredients, and those vary as well. Once again, what Jones et. al. studied was not just iron oxide and aluminum, either. The material in Jones' paper featured particles that would've been way too small for Cole to easily make in his backyard.



There is certainly a prople there.......


What is a "prople"? All you've done here is pointed out a semantic difference. This stuff still eats through steel and you could make a million different varieties with different additives and different ratios between the ingredients.
edit on 28-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join