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: 15
10
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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.


Jet fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons.




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
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.


Once again you are nowhere near experienced or creative enough to be a serious authority when it comes to how to rig buildings. Nothing you say here is of any consequence or even needs to be responded to for that reason alone. Maybe if you had sources, but of course none of this nonsense is actually fact.


Regardless of your personal belief, there is no evidence for thermite.


Reproducing events that are documented to have happened, is evidence. Finding steel that was melted in a eutectic reaction is evidence. There is evidence. What there isn't, is a member on ATS named "pteridine" who isn't a troll.


You use Jones paper as some sort of justification but you still dodging the thermodynamics question of the red chips.


The "question" your are talking about is more total nonsense that assumes paint should give off more energy than thermite or explosives when it ignites, despite no sources, no known form of paint that matches the substance in question, etc. etc. We come back to this every single time, and every single time you only offer stupidity to excuse yourself from having to provide a real form of paint that matches, or explain why paint is more energetic than thermite or explosives, etc.


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."


See, we were originally talking about WTC7, but that didn't last long since your "argument" has been demolished for years. I think you were debating whether or not to take up defense of that rotting corpse, and then just decided to drop WTC7 and just PMS about the OP instead.

I think it's funny that finally admit that there is a relationship between Jones' paper and what Cole did. Because before now you've always kicked and screamed about how what Jones was looking at had nothing to do with thermite in any form whatsoever, even going so far as to claim it was paint as if you know for a fact. I'm sure you really wish it had been proven to be paint, but so far that remains a wet dream of yours and you don't even know what to say when pressed to prove that it's paint. You just scramble more of these gobbledy-gook long-winded rants that mean nothing and that no one is buying. And so all you accomplish is an epic waste of time and energy.


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.


I told you before that you weren't very creative. All this proves is that you haven't actually put much thought into the different ways to rig the buildings. It also proves that you haven't put any thought into reconciling the contradictions between two different sets of standards you appear to have. Fire and planes impacts alone can apparently achieve the same symmetry and control that demolitions can, and at the same time you say thermite couldn't have been used to initiate the collapse because it would have been too slow.

Wait, haven't we had this discussion before? You think fire is faster than thermite when it comes to compromising columns. Yes, we have had this retarded discussion before and I can't believe you are still stuck on it.

So go ahead and explain why fire is able to accomplish a demolition more precisely and quickly than thermite would be able to. You must really think we're correct if you agree that the buildings required precision for what we saw.



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.


It's actually not what I was referring to. I was originally talking about WTC7 here, but not in relation to thermite. Now you are confusing the first subject that you ran away from, with the second subject that you ran to.


So, without any evidence of thermite/thermate at all, and with a randomly damaged, leaning building,


Show us how much it was leaning in the photographs. The damage to WTC7 was insignificant even according to NIST. Funny how you ignore the government when it's convenient, and make up your own arguments based on nothing but pure defensiveness.


All this adds up to you knowing nothing about demolition and trying to bluff your way to CD.


Again meaningless coming from someone who knows nothing of demolition themselves.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Anok - I'll say it again. Jet fuel is a glorified kerosene. It burns slower than other fuels, such as gasoline, as the use in lanterns for over a century can validate.

Heat expands metals. Metals already stressed and exposed to ongoing heat will expand and is prone to failure at splices, welds, and brackets.

I wish I wasn't under a strict non-disclosure agreement, but when you look at the elemental tables and determine the melting temperature of aluminum, steel, etc., those numbers are somewhat incorrect.

Not discussed is resonance. Gotta be thermite.

Resonance will disintegrate steel to the point it looks just like it vaporized.

I've seen aluminum melt right through steel, right through multiple layers of other aluminum, and right through the thermal plates in a furnace, and do so at less than 100 degrees below the melting point of aluminum.

It also molecularly alters the thick steel plates that are not only in contact, but just nearby.

I'd lean more toward heat stress and resonance.



edit on 4-4-2011 by FarArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
Heat expands metals. Metals already stressed and exposed to ongoing heat will expand and is prone to failure at splices, welds, and brackets.


That's not what the Cardington tests that I already posted for you showed.


I wish I wasn't under a strict non-disclosure agreement, but when you look at the elemental tables and determine the melting temperature of aluminum, steel, etc., those numbers are somewhat incorrect.


They determine the melting point of steel experimentally and steel is melted in many production processes.


Not discussed is resonance. Gotta be thermite.

Resonance will disintegrate steel to the point it looks just like it vaporized.


What frequencies and amplitudes, and would you have enough energy to actually be able to do it? That sounds like something Judy Wood would say.


I've seen aluminum melt right through steel, right through multiple layers of other aluminum, and right through the thermal plates in a furnace, and do so at less than 100 degrees below the melting point of aluminum.


Then what makes you think some thermate compound couldn't have done it?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



You use Jones paper as some sort of justification but you still dodging the thermodynamics question of the red chips.


The "question" your are talking about is more total nonsense that assumes paint should give off more energy than thermite or explosives when it ignites, despite no sources, no known form of paint that matches the substance in question, etc. etc. We come back to this every single time, and every single time you only offer stupidity to excuse yourself from having to provide a real form of paint that matches, or explain why paint is more energetic than thermite or explosives, etc.


The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used. You can display your skills and explain why thermite has more energy per unit mass, or confess your lack of chemical knowledge. Given what you have displayed so far, I recommend the confession.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 




1. Do you believe thermite when used correctly, can cut through steel?
2. Do you believe that red paint blew up the WTC?
3. Is it not possible that a thermatic material could have been mixed in the red paint that was discovered in the WTC dust partials?
4. “Is it possible” that the WTC could have been taken down by the use of a top secrete military application used in bomb making material not known to the civilian population?
5. Do you believe the NIST Report to be scientifically correct?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Weird. because when I just googled "9/11 Building Seven ...seconds" the top two results both claim that the collapse took less than seven seconds.


It's not my problem or my issue if you choose to obsess over people who, like yourself, have a poor understanding of physics. You can obsess over holograms and space beams too if you want, too, but you're still not going to learn anything.

The fact remains that "truthers" demonstrated WTC7's instantaneous acceleration before NIST did. I was here when it happened, and I remember. The old poster/moderator WeComeInPeace did an analysis himself on these forums before NIST did theirs.


So what? What's that got top do with what I wrote? I intervened to correct another poster - who you admit is talking nonsense - and you jump down my throat to talk about something else. And then blame "debunkers" for focusing on the time of the collapse. You widened the discussion to include "Truthers"and "debunkers", so I demonstrated that actually this factoid was not only Truther currency for years, but is in fact still merrily peddled by those same "authorities".




Sucks for you.



How old are you?



Yes, you are. If I'm a "truther" and what all other "truthers" say is apparently relevant when you talk to me as an individual, then yes, you too are responsible for what all these other people who aren't you say. Fair is fair. If you want your cake then I'm going to make you eat it too.


As I say it was you who took up the Truther cause above by claiming that the timescale issue was a debunker strawman. It took me three seconds on google to disabuse you of this notion. I'm not sure that you have the intellectual flexibility for this, but notice that my reply does not ask you to account for other "truthers", merely for the content of what you wrote.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.


For the love of God, learn how to link a source when you make a claim.


You can display your skills and explain why thermite has more energy per unit mass, or confess your lack of chemical knowledge.


Why wouldn't thermite have more energy per mass? And when you are going to show a known form of paint that has the same chemical make-up?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
The fact remains that "truthers" demonstrated WTC7's instantaneous acceleration before NIST did. I was here when it happened, and I remember. The old poster/moderator WeComeInPeace did an analysis himself on these forums before NIST did theirs.


So what? What's that got top do with what I wrote? I intervened to correct another poster - who you admit is talking nonsense - and you jump down my throat to talk about something else.


You are being intellectually dishonest when you act like you are "debunking" a claim about collapse "time" that is actually 100% verified by a separate measurement of something called "acceleration." That's what it has to do. I don't guess you were planning on telling this poster that WTC7 still accelerated at the rate of free-fall, were you?



As I say it was you who took up the Truther cause above by claiming that the timescale issue was a debunker strawman. It took me three seconds on google to disabuse you of this notion.


You never "disabused" anything. The total time WTC7 took is still irrelevant to the instantaneous free-fall acceleration of its roof line when the "global collapse" began. People have been pointing out that WTC7 free-fell for years as a serious issue with the official story, but you never knew enough physics to begin with to see why this should even have been a problem. So why even involve yourself in the argument at all, when you're clearly confused?


I'm not sure that you have the intellectual flexibility for this, but notice that my reply does not ask you to account for other "truthers", merely for the content of what you wrote.


Okay, so I should never see you bring up holograms or space beams or anything else to me unless I made the claim myself, right?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
The binder in paint DOES give off more energy than thermite or explosives in a DSC under the conditions Jones used.


For the love of God, learn how to link a source when you make a claim.


You can display your skills and explain why thermite has more energy per unit mass, or confess your lack of chemical knowledge.


Why wouldn't thermite have more energy per mass? And when you are going to show a known form of paint that has the same chemical make-up?


It wouldn't have more energy per unit mass because it doesn't. This is called thermodynamics. Your question reflects the state of your chemical knowledge and I will accept it as a confession of ignorance.

Any thermodynamic tables will provide all the information needed for someone as technically skilled as you are. I have explained this many times and, in a response to you in this thread, referenced one post that explains it.

For the love of God, learn how to read.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by bsbray11

You can display your skills and explain why thermite has more energy per unit mass, or confess your lack of chemical knowledge.


Why wouldn't thermite have more energy per mass? And when you are going to show a known form of paint that has the same chemical make-up?


It wouldn't have more energy per unit mass because it doesn't.


Then why did you just ask me to explain why it does?


I notice you still aren't posting sources. Asking for a source from you is a lost cause I guess.


This is called thermodynamics. Your question reflects the state of your chemical knowledge and I will accept it as a confession of ignorance.


You would love to base your entire argument on whether or not you think you're smarter than me, because if that "argument" actually made sense then maybe you would finally be able to get somewhere through all the convoluted crap you post.


For the love of God, learn how to read.


Okay, so you know how to mimic me. Now the question is, do you know how to read yourself, and post a source? And the answer is apparently "no."



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11So why even involve yourself in the argument at all, when you're clearly confused?


What argument? He claimed something, I showed him it was wrong. You barged in prattling on about something else and claiming no Truther ever said what I'd just showed him. I posted some current links that proved they not only did claim it, but that they still claimed it.

This isn't an argument, it's one person stating facts and another one screeching about irrelevancies like a teenage girl.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
What argument? He claimed something, I showed him it was wrong. You barged in prattling on about something else and claiming no Truther ever said what I'd just showed him. I posted some current links that proved they not only did claim it, but that they still claimed it.


If this is just a pissing contest to you, then you're perfectly right.

But if there is some larger point to why you post here, then you would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the legitimate point that is being referred to in the fact that WTC7 did in fact accelerate at free-fall. Again, only if this is purely a point-by-point pissing contest to you, would it be appropriate to ignore the valid issue just to correct a technicality.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The conclusions in Jones paper are invalid because of the thermodynamics but you claim not to understand any of it. You continually play the grand inquisitor because behind the facade of questions, demands for proof, and personal attacks, there isn't much substance. You have no theories and yet you tell others that they have "no imagination." Only you understand instantaneous velocity because only you ever studied differential calculus and mechanics.

This is my post to you challenging you to show how Jones thermodynamics are correct in spite of my analysis. Of course, you ignored it at the time. For energy output of the hydrocarbon binder, look up the heat of combustion of wax as an estimate. Thermodynamic tables will also allow you to easily calculate the heat of reaction of thermite if you don't believe Jones' references.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are a poseur, BS.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The conclusions in Jones paper are invalid because of the thermodynamics but you claim not to understand any of it.


Show me where I made such a claim.


Now you're lying again....


You continually play the grand inquisitor because behind the facade of questions, demands for proof, and personal attacks, there isn't much substance.


Maybe if you were the one calling for a real investigation, you could enjoy the same privileges.

Since I come here with nothing to prove, except that your "proof" of what happened on 9/11 is a bunch of smoke, mirrors, and stupidity, I have no burden to prove anything else to you. You can imagine up all kinds of additional burdens, but you're just as wrong as when you post any of this other crap. I am asking questions, and if you're not mature enough to deal with that, keep crying about it?


You have no theories and yet you tell others that they have "no imagination." Only you understand instantaneous velocity because only you ever studied differential calculus and mechanics.


You mean instantaneous acceleration? Who's talking about instantaneous velocity, and what would that have to do with anything?


This is my post to you challenging you to show how Jones thermodynamics are correct in spite of my analysis.


That's easy. All I have to do is point out that your "analysis" is a layman rant, which is proven by observation. Now you just get mad because you're so easy to refute. Learn how to post sources champ. Arguing to your own authority is pompous and no one is buying it. At least when I do make positive claims, I at least can provide sources for them. That's one reason my positive arguments are so scarce, as opposed to yours, which are numerous, superfluous, and hardly ever sourced.



For energy output of the hydrocarbon binder, look up the heat of combustion of wax as an estimate.


Wtf?


I ask you for a source for your claim, and you respond with "look up the heat combustion of wax as an estimate"?



This is why I ask you for sources. You are MAKING STUFF UP!!



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


You ARE confused.

You are talking about the time for the collapse from start to end. You are ignoring that during those 16 seconds the collapse did drop at free-fall acceleration. The overall collapse time is irrelevant. If it was truly a collapse from fire it would have taken hours, not seconds. You would have seen obvious local collapses first.

All the evidence points to implosion demolition...

1. Penthouse Kink...


Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

2. Free-fall acceleration as admitted by NIST...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. Outer walls are visible on top of the collapsed building...



Collapse times are not that important, it's the post collapse result that matters. Even if it took 16 hours to collapse, if the outer walls end up on top of the rest of the collapsed building it had to be an implosion demolition. There is no other way that is possible regardless of collapse times.


edit on 4/5/2011 by ANOK because: TheOSisAlie



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

In my analysis, I use Jones' data. The source is Jones paper. I have repeated this many times. After you claim to have vast amounts of education, you are unable to function unless someone posts a link to a website.

You should be thinking about the senior prom and not worryinig yourself about pretend conspiracies.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I often sit out looking up at the stars at night and wondering why the binder in paint is allowed to give off more energy, when the "binder" in an MIC can not.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
In my analysis, I use Jones' data. The source is Jones paper.


And yet your conclusions are somehow very different than Dr. Jones', who is a professional with a very long resume.

That's where the opinionated layman ranting that amounts to nothing comes in. And you make tons of other claims that you never source, and when pressed, turns out never had any other source than you anyway.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



In my analysis, I use Jones' data.


The fact is you have not shown any analysis.


I have repeated this many times.


Yes you have, yet you have given us nothing but your “opinions,” correct?


I have repeated this many times. After you claim to have vast amounts of education, you are unable to function unless someone posts a link to a website.


Now you have resorted to insulting the messenger because he asked you to back your “opinions” by presenting credible sources.


you are unable to function unless someone posts a link to a website.


What does the messenger functioning have to do with the OP? He asked you to post sources to back your accusation. Perhaps you believe no one on ATS have a right to question you?


You should be thinking about the senior prom and not worryinig yourself about pretend conspiracies.


Yes, and we all should take your “opinions” as scientific proof? That’s like accepting the government word of the OS as credible truth.

The cold hard fact is Jones found na-nothermite in the WTC dust samples. To what type of supper na-nothermite it was is yet to be discovered. Fact is Jones couldn’t fine any known match to compare his analysis to.

You cannot say you “debunked” Jones Journal without showing your lab results from Jones WTC dust samples, which you do not have access to. Anyone can make accusation that they have proved Jones journal is flawed by giving their “opinions” all day long; it means absolutely nothing to people who are seeking the truth and scientific evidence (meaning) people want to see your science, not what you believe or assume.

You can ignore me all you want it makes no different to me, but when you continue to tell fallacies against Jones science and all science concerning thermite and na-nothermite people will call you on your accusation. Where are your sources to back your opinions against Jones Journal? Where are all these scientist that back your claims? Jones paper has been out for several years now, and you have made it clear that it is easy to get a paper peer reviewed, that if his paper is so flawed why haven’t you and all these scientists submitted a paper for peer review against Jones Journal?

You have not debunked anything, giving your “opinions” is not debunking.
edit on 5-4-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join