Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

reply to post by buddhasystem

May I ask, do you believe that the plane was expected to crash into a specific location of the structure with that kind of precision?

I think not.

Would have been a much easier feat than crashing into the ground floor of the Pentagon without touching the grass..That's for sure.!!!!

reply to post by pteridine


You know pteridine, it really is a shame your not on our side. Your stubborn and passionate in your own belief much as we are. Thermate is thermite with a few or less compounds but it's the same. I don't know if to call you foolish to debate this or just wait for you to turn. What's the problem? Why are you so obstinate? Your government is no angel. No government is one for that matter and I'm sure you're bright enough to already know this. So why is it so hard for you to come to terms with the truth?

As one poster mentioned about that other emotional guy who decided to drop in and drop a few F bombs, if you could only channel your energy to the the right cause, we can move forward more quickly and protect what little freedoms we have left. Join the movement pteridine. Perhaps now is not the right time for you but there is always hope

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by impressme

He wants attention and adulation and needs his ego fed

Has Jones confided sweet nothings in your ears about his personal feelings? I would like to know who told you this nonsense and why would you believe in such garbage?

Look up on Carl Jung's work on projection and the subconscious. It's amazing what you can tell about someone based on what they are accusing others of and all the things they hold contempt for in life. Not that you couldn't reach the same conclusions from other methods.

The professional thread killers have begun using tactics that cause these kinds of threads to be painfully redundant and not interesting to people who might be on the fence concerning this debate. Back 5 years or so ago, the tactic was to flame and insult, and we still see some of it now and then, but the newer tactics have been to rehash and rehash fundamentals, as if these issues haven't been addressed within the specific thread already. The idea is to cause the uninvested lurker to move on to a new, more interesting topic. It's the lurker that is being targeted with this stuff, and they know that they can assert any foolishness - disguised as simple misunderstanding - and drive thread views away by making every page seem like an endless repeat of the last page for the relatively uninvolved lurkers that they are trying to push away from this information.

There are people who study these boards, and the dynamics of these debates, to engineer tactics and strategies that will keep this subject relegated to the JFK Assassination Conspiracy parlor game museum of unsolved mysteries. It might just succeed, but only if the folks trying to get this thing remedied continue to indulge these endless "debaters" and their plan to keep this damn thing mired forever as a debate.

The effort has to move past this investigative phase. The US government, and the mainstream media will never be part of this process. The investigation has to proceed now to determining who was involved, and to ignore this "was it an inside job" circle-jerk. The strategy is to have it never leave this useless stage. This way, the people who actually do care, end up feeling as if they actually did something about it by winning an argument online with a paid troll - someone who gets paid per post to keep the focus where it was in 2005, and to never allow it to progress to the next level of concern - who are the perps and how do we get them.

reply to post by bsbray11


That is not the problem with the paper.
The assumption that iron containing means iron is a problem. The assumption that such spheres can only arise from thermite is a problem. The lack of XRD analysis is a problem as it would show any minerals present.The DSC in air is inconclusive, the fact that the chips ignited and then went out casts doubt on their "highly engineered" status. The SEM images of aluminosilicate clays casts doubt on elemental aluminum. SEM stages are aluminum and shine through of the EDAX is common, so finding elemental aluminum in a sample is a sign to repeat the experiment.

If this paper was published by NIST with all of these discrepancies, would you be so quick to accept it without question?

Here is a link to a thread I did awhile back with supporting documentation. I copied some of the text and links for convenience. One moe time.

Evidence of Nanothermite

Here are the documents:

Dept of Energy

Lawrence Livermore Labs

Lawrence Livermore Labs

Department Of Energy FOIA Records For Nano-Explosive Materials Development Circa 2001

For those of you familiar with Aidan Monaghan he has turned up more provocative government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. This group of articles are scientific papers from the likes of Lawrence Livermore Labs describing "Aerogel" nanothermite materials.

One paper is dated August 18, 1997 and shows conclusive proof of a completely new and original explosive material that have achieved "burn rates 1000 times that of conventional powder mixes." Remember the NatGeo thermite experiment???

- The existence of nanothermite production facility at US Navy's Indian Head facility (just outside of Washington)
- Cost and timing of these production facilities built in the 1990s
- Job adverts for these facilities
- Conferences before Sept 2001 where the versatility of nanothermite was discussed
- articles on the military "energetic" uses of nano-materials
- evidence that the only other known nanothermite production facility, the SNPE facility (located next to the AZF factory) (in France) blowing up 10 days after 9/11 - blowing out every window in Toulose! This explosion was blamed on a Muslim that had started worked at the facility just 5 days earlier.

reply to post by FlySolo


So you claim that even though there are other components present thermite and thermate are the same thing because their base ingredients are the same. That means that because the elements of thermite are in nanocomposite thermites, they must be the same as thermite, too.

Originally posted by gaparke
So in the experiment he uses a standard steal I-beam maybe 1/4" thick. The WTC beams were 3" thick. How much Thermite or Thermate would be needed to cut through 3" of steel? Lets see an experiment for that.

Also, this Thermite is only visible at 1 location on 1 of the 2 towers. To bring the towers, I would think this reaction would be seen at numerous locations on both towers. Also, the plane would have severed any wiring to trigger the thermite. So was it battery powered under wireless remote control?

The real question should WHO or WHAT was in control of the planes at the time.

I believe there was more than enough damage done by the planes to bring the towers down without explosive help.

However, I do think the Israeli Mossad orchestrated this.

The Steel "beams" were NOT 3" thick but 3 foot square "box" columns. Riveted together and the thickness got smaller the higher up in the building. you can see all kinds of pictures of the construction of it and the box columns in place. Odd where people get their information from. I am a welder and work with heavy metal, used to build semi trailers, now build manufacturing equipment. And yes, these experiments are correct and thermate or thermite makes little difference. BOTH will cut through the rivets and the beams. Different time span is all.

reply to post by NorEaster


I agree with your statement 100% But fortunately most of the lurkers including myself are average people. Typically I will look at the OP, read the first page, then skip to the last to see what progress has been made. I won't wade though pages and pages to make my decision. I would think most people don't either, so they never get caught up in the distraction.

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I agree with your statement 100% But fortunately most of the lurkers including myself are average people. Typically I will look at the OP, read the first page, then skip to the last to see what progress has been made. I won't wade though pages and pages to make my decision. I would think most people don't either, so they never get caught up in the distraction.

So, when a lurker looks, which page is the last page? Depends on the moment they look...no? I never assume anything about lurkers - especially ones who've just gotten interested in a subject being discussed. I never season anyone else's soup either. In fact, I don't season my own soup until I've tasted it. You'd be surprised at how many people do. We post for the lurkers on these boards. I definitely post for the lurkers. That post was specifically for the lurkers.

reply to post by Josephus23


Note that the core is there. There are some exterior columns swaying but the core doesn't. Look a little closer.

reply to post by NorEaster


In retrospect you are right about that seeing I am doing the same thing. But for the most part imo I think most people are in/out. However, I can't possibly wager a guess how many non-members come here and what percentage stick around through a whole thread.

reply to post by pteridine


I have looked about as many times as is possible in the 2 seconds of frame that you have provided and it is indistinguishable from the material in the outer shell.

So since that is the ONE AND ONLY video that shows this then I will have to apply ockham's razor to this problem and state that it is THE OUTSIDE of the building.

Seriously.... Is this the best this government has to offer in the way of debate on this issue?

reply to post by pteridine

Stop Clinging to that video. Try looking for another one to prove your theory of those columns being the "core". I think it was pretty clear that the only vertical columns are only found in the exterior of the building. Did you skip past that post as well?

Originally posted by gaparke
So in the experiment he uses a standard steal I-beam maybe 1/4" thick. The WTC beams were 3" thick. How much Thermite or Thermate would be needed to cut through 3" of steel? Lets see an experiment for that.

Yeah, and why not see some of this nanothermite Los Alamos has too?

This guy is usually commercially-available material while the DoD has labs creating nano-particle compounds.


From one of the DoD's own magazines:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbc40cdd06e5.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by pteridine

 

I have looked about as many times as is possible in the 2 seconds of frame that you have provided and it is indistinguishable from the material in the outer shell.

So since that is the ONE AND ONLY video that shows this then I will have to apply ockham's razor to this problem and state that it is THE OUTSIDE of the building.

Seriously.... Is this the best this government has to offer in the way of debate on this issue?

This is a youtube video. There is another that shows a central structure after the collapse. Note the title. Note the design of the central structure. Try stopping the video betwen 15 and 19 seconds and look at the stills.

I'll tell the NSA to label the parts and repost it for you.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by FlySolo

 

So you claim that even though there are other components present thermite and thermate are the same thing because their base ingredients are the same. That means that because the elements of thermite are in nanocomposite thermites, they must be the same as thermite, too.

You're running around in circles. I think the average person who compares the difference between thermite and thermate can decide it really is the same thing. Nano or not. So just because it has a dash more of this and dash less of that and is smaller, its different? It has the same base chemical substance, same chemical reaction +/- time to combust. Its just more efficient. I really don't find this particular subject worthy of argument and neither should you. unless you have an agenda

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Note that the core is there. There are some exterior columns swaying but the core doesn't. Look a little closer.

See, now this is the kind of blather that chunks threads that might've had a lot to add to the debate. Foolishness like arguing over a quick glimpse of crap that collapsed as soon as it showed itself through the dust. Maybe interesting in some small way for a person who's got absolutely nothing else of interest to think about, but in reality, that sliver of steel that held after the entire building disintengrated around it - and only for a second - indicates jack-sh*t, and only serves to cripple the point being made with worthless digression and aimless controversy.

This is a classic disinformation tactic, and the more established 9/11 discussion forums wouldn't entertain this sort of idiocy. They'd immediately see it for what it is, and walk right past it.

The WTC towers were specifically designed (using three isolated segments per tower, bolted together - one on top of the other) to make a progressive collapse literally impossible. They had to, to get the permits to build. NYC is not stupid. This crap about a "collapse" due to anything other than timed blasts within the core (RF triggered by line-of-site FM sends, controlled by a laptop, with the initiating blast configured to correspond to the jet liner impact level before the rest of the blast sequencing progresses) has been debunked to death, and yet these disinfo pay-per-post losers just can't seem to lose on these big boards by teasing you guys into a useless frenzy.

This isn't a game. 3,000 people were murdered. We all got a front row seat to it, and if we actually give a damn, we can't let this crime become a trivia pursuit edition. Do what you want, but I'm feeling it necessary to point out the obvious here. If this keeps up, those 3,000 murders will sit on the shelf with JFK's murder as nothing more than some *sshole's angle on a book deal from time to time. They deserve better than that. The perps need to be established. That's were the investigation needs to go now.

reply to post by FlySolo


The time to combust nanothermite is much shorter and the energy comes out much faster. The effects of thermate on steel are not the same as thermite. You are right that none of this matters because no matter what version is used, the demolition cannot be timed to collapse floors in a rapid sequence.

reply to post by NorEaster


Yeah, right. Try this www.youtube.com... between 1:08 and 1:16.

reply to post by pteridine


dude hold on to your beliefs and then move along, because what this man has scientifically shown you cannot be refuted. what, you don't think that the scientific community doesn't know how to make thermite and thermate cut steel? why sure they do. if they can build atomic weapons, they can surely do this even better.

now move along, you're dragging down the discussion with your irrelevance