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: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


First you were talking about WTC7's collapse time/acceleration, now you're talking about Jones' paper and Cole's demonstrations of thermate cutting steel.

When your fallacies get beat down in one place you just move on to something unrelated as if you can't even read.

I really wish ATS had better resident "debunkers" than this. Why don't you recruit some of your JREF buddies or something?




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine
 


First you were talking about WTC7's collapse time/acceleration, now you're talking about Jones' paper and Cole's demonstrations of thermate cutting steel.

When your fallacies get beat down in one place you just move on to something unrelated as if you can't even read.

I really wish ATS had better resident "debunkers" than this. Why don't you recruit some of your JREF buddies or something?


The thermite and the demonstration are linked. The demo is the topic of this thread, which is probably a complete surprise to you. You seem to spend your time attacking posters who disagree with you.

There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC so Cole's demo is pointless.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The thermite and the demonstration are linked.


Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about. Which is why I said you just jump from one thing to another when your arguments degenerate so much.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The thermite and the demonstration are linked.


Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about. Which is why I said you just jump from one thing to another when your arguments degenerate so much.


Thermite didn't have anything to do with the WTC7 collapse time? Noted. I am glad that you see things that way.

The thermal expansion of the 50 ft beams was on the order of 3-5", more than enough to shear connections.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite didn't have anything to do with the WTC7 collapse time?


I've never seen anyone make that particular claim, unless you would like to be the first.

Then again you are always imagining and responding to things that no one actually posted.



The thermal expansion of the 50 ft beams was on the order of 3-5", more than enough to shear connections.


According to what, again? The same computer simulations that show nothing even resembling WTC7 during its "collapse"?


And have you contacted any of your JREF buddies yet? I'm really getting tired of responding to endless fallacies and other garbled nonsense that sounds like it came straight from the geek table at a high school cafeteria. I know I put you on ignore once before but that only seemed to inflate your ego in some sadistic way and "prove" to you that you might actually know what in the hell you're saying to strangers online. So the only other thing I can think of is you need a "role model" that knows at least what a logical argument is.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


How does anything you claim result in WTC 7 landing mostly in its own footprint with the outer walls sitting on top of the rest of the demolished building?

Can you explain how this is possible from an uncontrolled collapse? Can you cite any other collapse that had the same outcome that was not an implosion demolition?

I don't care about fire, or thermal expansion, none of those things can do this by themselves...




edit on 4/3/2011 by ANOK because: WTC7wasanimplosiondemolition



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite didn't have anything to do with the WTC7 collapse time?


I've never seen anyone make that particular claim, unless you would like to be the first.

Then again you are always imagining and responding to things that no one actually posted.


Do you suffer from memory lapses? www.abovetopsecret.com...
I posted: "The thermite and the demonstration are linked."
You responded: "Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about."



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Do you suffer from memory lapses? www.abovetopsecret.com...
I posted: "The thermite and the demonstration are linked."
You responded: "Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about."


When I say "neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration," that actually means, neither (the subject of Jones' paper, or Cole's demonstration) had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration.



It doesn't mean the exact opposite of what it says.



Please, please, please, use your powers to recruit a better "debunker" so my IQ will stop dropping every time I have to read your posts.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Do you suffer from memory lapses? www.abovetopsecret.com...
I posted: "The thermite and the demonstration are linked."
You responded: "Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about."


When I say "neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration," that actually means, neither (the subject of Jones' paper, or Cole's demonstration) had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration.



It doesn't mean the exact opposite of what it says.



Please, please, please, use your powers to recruit a better "debunker" so my IQ will stop dropping every time I have to read your posts.


Thermite was the subject of Jones' paper. You said that it didn't have anything to do with the collapse time/acceleration. I agree. If you are unable to express yourself clearly, that is something you should work on.
I hope that this post didn't hurt your IQ as you obviously can't afford such.
edit on 4/3/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I've used lots of thermite to cut lots of steel.

It takes lots and lots and lots of thermite to cut steel. Not only a large mass of thermite is needed, but you'd need to focus that discharge in specific areas. Generally, it's focused at a point and is burned out in moments to burn/melt holes in steel.

The WTC didn't collapse from thermite. I don't give a tinkersdamn what color it was.

Metal expands when heated.

Conduct an experiment yourself. Use a large "C" clamp to clamp two sheets of steel together. Really tighten that clamp well. Hell, use two.

Put in a furnace and raise the temperature to 1000 degrees F.

After thirty minutes, pull the plates and clamp out and the plates will likely fall out of the clamp - it's expanded that much. Now that large "C" clamp only has a linear foot or so of steel.

Now, think what that expansion of linear steel will do to bolts/expansion plates/welds in the long beams of the WTC?.

That's right. Just by linear expansion, joints will explode.

Do they not teach any basic chemistry or physics in school any more?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
I've used lots of thermite to cut lots of steel.

It takes lots and lots and lots of thermite to cut steel. Not only a large mass of thermite is needed, but you'd need to focus that discharge in specific areas. Generally, it's focused at a point and is burned out in moments to burn/melt holes in steel.


Did you watch the video that the OP is talking about?

It takes less than 5 pounds of thermite plus a few other common ingredients to slice through steel equivalent to a perimeter column or core column. The engineer in the video is even able to hide the entire device inside the bolt access hole of a perimeter column.



Do they not teach any basic chemistry or physics in school any more?


The effect of fire on steel frame construction is not "basic physics" and no, it isn't taught even for civil engineering degrees. That steel expands, yes. However that is local to a single member. Look up the Cardington tests for how an over-all steel frame structure handles thermal expansion.






The deformations and warping is because the beams are trying to expand while they are firmly restrained on both sides by columns, so they expand in the middle where there is the least resistance.



The Broadgate fire was introduced in Chapter 1 of this thesis. Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115]

The behaviour of the structure and the floor members showed that a steel frame designed to BS 5950 Part 8 is structurally safe when exposed to a severe fire. The study [115] carried out after the Broadgate fire showed that when fire affects only part of a structure (compartmentation) and when the framework acts as a total entity structural stability is improved.

Detailed studies of the material properties at high temperatures were carried out and it was concluded that apart from the concrete to the first floor no material showed significant loss of strength due to the fire. Detailed metallurgical investigations were carried out to asses the temperatures reached by the quenched and tempered bolts recovered from several of the beam to column connections in the areas of the fire which showed most damage. These indicated that the most severe temperatures achieved by the bolts during the fire or during manufacture were limited to 540°C. Similar evidence from a truss indicated that the member had been heated to around 600°C. The principles of BS5950 Part 8 would suggest that these members would transfer load to cooler parts of the structure until temperatures of about 700~800°C but the investigations suggest that the temperatures achieved did not exceed 600°C so an alternative explanation for the deformations observed was needed.


guardian.150m.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite was the subject of Jones' paper. You said that it didn't have anything to do with the collapse time/acceleration. I agree.


So why did you change the subject so rapidly after I told you that yes, Dr. Steven Jones knows the difference between acceleration and time? Did you not know the difference?


I guess even you weren't going to take the next "logical" "debunker" move of once again denying that WTC7 accelerated at free fall, once you realized your collapse "time" stupidity wasn't going to fly, just like it didn't fly so many years ago.
edit on 3-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Thermite was the subject of Jones' paper. You said that it didn't have anything to do with the collapse time/acceleration. I agree.


So why did you change the subject so rapidly after I told you that yes, Dr. Steven Jones knows the difference between acceleration and time? Did you not know the difference?


I guess even you weren't going to take the next "logical" "debunker" move of once again denying that WTC7 accelerated at free fall, once you realized your collapse "time" stupidity wasn't going to fly, just like it didn't fly so many years ago


The topic is thermite and Jones didn't find it. Cole's experiment is pointless. As to your comments above about only five pounds of thermate, there is no evidence for that either. If thermate had been used, timing for simultaneous collapse using multiple charges is not possible because of the speed of the thermate effects. It is too slow and erratic. If only one charge was used on a key component, then you could say thermate was a possibility.
Finally, the study you quote might not apply to a cobbled together structure like WTC7. Thermal expansion of a cantilever beam is a likely cause of collapse.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Personally I think who did it is more important than discussing what happened. Most people do not have the necessarry background anyway and even if by chance 2 or 3 do, the rest cant be a judge over a discussion between architects.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Personally I think who did it is more important than discussing what happened. Most people do not have the necessarry background anyway and even if by chance 2 or 3 do, the rest cant be a judge over a discussion between architects.


Raphael names names:

frankresearch.info...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



The topic is thermite and Jones didn't find it.


Wrong.
Now, do you care to back up your “unproven opinion” with science? If not, then you should stop making up fallacies against real science that has been peer reviewed and has now been accepted into the scientific community. Please post your scientific report?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The topic is thermite and Jones didn't find it.


Right. So by your intentional silence I take it that you have been forced to realize at this point that WTC7 did in fact accelerate at free-fall, and the amount of time the total collapse took is irrelevant to this instantaneous measurement.


Cole's experiment is pointless.


Actually, there were lots of ignorant people on the internet claiming that no form of thermite could cut steel effectively, and especially make horizontal or even vertical cuts. Lots of people claimed variations of this, that thermite in any form is basically useless. Even National Geographic made a piss-poor documentary where they infamously used over 100 pounds of thermite and accomplished nothing.

So yes, there was a point to his experiments, and it was to wash all of that "debunking" garbage right out of the way of real scientific fact.


As to your comments above about only five pounds of thermate, there is no evidence for that either. If thermate had been used, timing for simultaneous collapse using multiple charges is not possible because of the speed of the thermate effects. It is too slow and erratic. If only one charge was used on a key component, then you could say thermate was a possibility.


You're not very creative, and all of this speculation from you is worthless. Commercial demolitions typically involve pre-cuts to many members that weaken the structure but leave it soundly intact until the final sequence. So obviously it is possible to cut through a certain number of columns minutes in advance without causing a premature collapse. I also do not believe that the "collapse" started with the perimeter columns, which you seem to assume. Why don't you think the "collapses" have initiated within the cores?


Finally, the study you quote might not apply to a cobbled together structure like WTC7. Thermal expansion of a cantilever beam is a likely cause of collapse.


I already asked you once what you source for this claim was and all I got was more silence.

Try. Harder.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Of course, months of precuts and cabling wouldn't destabilize a building and wouldn't be noticable, especially by people like you. Your statement "Commercial demolitions typically involve pre-cuts to many members that weaken the structure but leave it soundly intact until the final sequence" forgets that the final sequence is multiple linear shaped charges carefully timed; thermate is too slow. You'd better rethink this and maybe use the military-demolitions-using-secret-stuff explanation that your desperate fellow travellers like to invoke.
Regardless of your personal belief, there is no evidence for thermite. You use Jones paper as some sort of justification but you still dodging the thermodynamics question of the red chips. You either can't face the truth or aren't bright enough to understand the issue. Of course you did write: "Well it's nice that you finally admit as much, but neither had anything to do with WTC7's collapse time/acceleration like we were just talking about" as a response to my comment "The thermite and the demonstration are linked." Would you like to retract that statement or continue with your redefinitions after the fact?
Next you wrote "I also do not believe that the "collapse" started with the perimeter columns", which you seem to assume I said. Nowhere did I state that the external columns initiated the collapse. The inital collapse of the penthouses occured seconds before the complete collapse, indicating internal collapse of key central structures. This must be what you are claiming was thermite initiated, assuming that you mis-spoke about "neither had anything to do..." while on a typical rant. So, without any evidence of thermite/thermate at all, and with a randomly damaged, leaning building, you think that people have the ability to selectively cut specific components without collapsing the building prematurely and then collapse it on demand.
All this adds up to you knowing nothing about demolition and trying to bluff your way to CD.



edit on 4/4/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
You'd have to be retarded to try to use a thermite compound to drop or cut steel to drop a building. It's most inefficient, takes too much time, effort, and preparation.

We'd use it for blowing holes in engine blocks to ruin the vehicle. It's just not easy to set up, easy to use, or easy to control over any linear distance.

Jeez. Just use cutting charges such as C2, C3, C4, Semtex, or PETN. And those would be much easier to hide. I mean, this assumption about thermite is getting way beyond ridiculous.

Heat. Heat from fuel. Jet fuel is glorified kerosene. Not nitro.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Heat. Heat from fuel. Jet fuel is glorified kerosene. Not nitro.


Jet fuel burns cooler in open air than hydrocarbons, so the jet fuel would have only done one thing, make objects it covered burn quicker, not hotter.

Even if it did, it could not cause the complete global collapse with no mass left in the footprints of the towers, as required by the claims of the OSers.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join