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

reply to post by 2bfree1776

They didn't use regular thermite/mate for this but a highly engineered (and explosive) nano thermetic material that was produced in a highly sophisticated environment i.e. LLL or some other military lab of which we now have conclusive evidence that it was in the buildings due to the amazing and courageous work of Professor Harriet et al.

You’re absolutely correct, yet, there are people in here trying to down play the thermite as regular thermite. The fact is Jones’ did not discover regular thermite in the WTC dust samples. Jones clearly tested and retested their samples in different heat tests and their discovery was of a supper na-nothermite, Jones said “we are talking military science.”

The debunkers continue to [color=gold]“down play” Jones’ discoveries in his journal.

The debunkers are convinced that airplane impact on two of the WTC and regular office fires brought down all three WTC at free fall. Have the debunkers proved that this is what happened to the WTC, of course not, because they know science cannot stand up to that theory. NIST science does not stand up to their theory, and NIST cannot make any statements that demolition didn’t take the WTC down because they never investigated it in the first place.

Originally posted by pteridine
I'll explain once more. Do try to focus.

I already understand what you're trying to do. You can stop repeating yourself because it didn't make sense the first time, the 2nd, or the 3rd.

Why don't you try to focus on the question I am asking, instead of posting a bunch of rhetoric around it.


If you think fire caused the collapses, how is thermate supposed to act more slowly than fire?


You say thermate is too slow to cause the "collapses" we are looking at, yet you think the "collapses" we are looking at were caused by fire, which is even slower. Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your argument is "I'll pretend there's an imaginary universe where controlled demolition happened and looked completely different from the collapses that everyone saw and the "truthers" arguments only apply to this parallel universe instead of the reality I live in." WRONG. Do you know what the words frivolous and irrelevant mean?


Once again, we are looking at the exact same collapse "pteridine." This is not some hypothetical, "imagine an alternative universe where I might actually be wrong" question. We are looking at the same buildings, and the same "collapses." You think fire is faster than thermate?

Yes or no?

reply to post by bsbray11


You must be purposely misunderstanding my argument as no one could possibly be as dense as you pretend to be.
I claim that gravity was sufficient to account for the speed of collapse and no additional demolitions were necessary. I claim that the buildings were weakened by the impacts of aircraft and the remaining steel was further weakened by fire. The fires were started by the jet fuel which then consumed the contents of the buildings. There is no evidence for anything else regardless of how you wish there was or how many laws of physics you think were violated. Your intuition is "irrelevant and superfluous." Estimates of delay times to account for resistance to collapse are mere assumptions and are without basis. Using guesses like these to calculate the time and mode of collapse is speculation.The claims of sequential demolition using therm*te are flawed because therm*te is slower to cut through steel than the collapse speed of the buildings. To keep up with gravitational collapse would require linear shaped charge cutters and there is no evidence for those either. Before you try the explosive-super-nano-thermite-demolition argument again, note that any thermite that detonates will sound like any other explosive because of the shock wave. I refer you to the "behavior of metals under impulsive loads" and "the science of high explosives" two books that I rely on for thermohydrodynamics and effects of explosives. Because you are asking the silly question about fire and thermite, it appears that you believe that thermite somehow initiated the collapse and gravity then completed the task. Perhaps someday you will find evidence to support your theory. Jon Cole proved only that thermate does what it is supposed to do, which may be an exciting revelation for the true believers.

reply to post by pteridine


You didn't explain your contradiction.

You really didn't.

Nope, definitely didn't explain your contradiction.

Just more of the same BS that ignores known physics, such as conservation of momentum, Newtons laws of motion etc. The insane notion that gravity can overcome so much resistance without blinking...

Originally posted by 2bfree1776
reply to post by pteridine

 

They didn't use regular thermite/mate for this but a highly engineered (and explosive) nano thermetic material that was produced in a highly sophisticated environment i.e. LLL or some other military lab of which we now have conclusive evidence that it was in the buildings due to the amazing and courageous work of Professor Harriet et al.

The evidence is not conclusive. The publication of the Harrit-Jones paper can certainly be described as amazing but courageous is not how I would characterize the team.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine

 

You didn't explain your contradiction.

You really didn't.

Nope, definitely didn't explain your contradiction.

Just more of the same BS that ignores known physics, such as conservation of momentum, Newtons laws of motion etc. The insane notion that gravity can overcome so much resistance without blinking...

I'll bet you think I didn't explain the contradiction that BS made up for me. It's really his and I don't plan to answer his question about thermite and fire.

Gravity has been working pretty steadily for my entire life and I'd hate to abandon it now. It has never failed me so I'll probably stick with it. I know that you'd like CD and I know that you can list a bunch of "known physics" that you like to claim was ignored. I try not to ignore physics but I can't see where it was ignored in the towers collapse. If you can explain it without referring me to youtube videos with bad music, bad transitions, overly dramatic speakers, and the colored lines and circles, it would be informative.

Originally posted by pteridine
You must be purposely misunderstanding my argument as no one could possibly be as dense as you pretend to be.

I think this lashing out is the result of someone who has their back to a wall but still refuses to acknowledge it's there.

I claim that gravity was sufficient to account for the speed of collapse and no additional demolitions were necessary. I claim that the buildings were weakened by the impacts of aircraft and the remaining steel was further weakened by fire. The fires were started by the jet fuel which then consumed the contents of the buildings. There is no evidence for anything else regardless of how you wish there was or how many laws of physics you think were violated. Your intuition is "irrelevant and superfluous." Estimates of delay times to account for resistance to collapse are mere assumptions and are without basis. Using guesses like these to calculate the time and mode of collapse is speculation.The claims of sequential demolition using therm*te are flawed because therm*te is slower to cut through steel than the collapse speed of the buildings. To keep up with gravitational collapse would require linear shaped charge cutters and there is no evidence for those either. Before you try the explosive-super-nano-thermite-demolition argument again, note that any thermite that detonates will sound like any other explosive because of the shock wave. I refer you to the "behavior of metals under impulsive loads" and "the science of high explosives" two books that I rely on for thermohydrodynamics and effects of explosives. Because you are asking the silly question about fire and thermite, it appears that you believe that thermite somehow initiated the collapse and gravity then completed the task. Perhaps someday you will find evidence to support your theory. Jon Cole proved only that thermate does what it is supposed to do, which may be an exciting revelation for the true believers.

I love how when someone shows you how little sense you make, you retreat to posting epic rants in some attempt to look educated, but actually have nothing to do with the subject at hand except for the 2 sentences I emboldened. If you can't even tell when you are blatantly contradicting yourself then I don't care what books you are trying to read.


If you think fire and impact damage alone caused the collapses, then by definition you think no thermate resulted in the observed rate of destruction. You think fire, combined with the earlier damage, is eventually what initiated it, and then nothing else was needed.

Yet at the same time you don't think thermate could "cut through steel" as fast as fire, and lead to the same rate of destruction. Which is absurd.


If you think it's as easy to cause such a rapid rate of destruction without thermate, then the same could be achieved with thermate. If you can't agree with that then the level to which you have deluded yourself in all these years of internet squabbling has become obvious.


And please keep all the "there are those who believe" crap to yourself, because I'm not talking about what anyone else believes and that's the wrong way to correct your own contradiction in reasoning anyway.

reply to post by bsbray11


Where did I say that fire could cut through steel faster than thermite? I don't remember posting that statement. Perhaps it is just another of your misinterpretations or your rising kundalini is still choking your brain.

Originally posted by pteridine
Where did I say that fire could cut through steel faster than thermite?

So are you now saying that fire can't cut through steel faster than thermite?

reply to post by bsbray11


I never said that it did. You falsely claimed that I said it.

Watch a collapse video. See how fast the buildings fall, BS? Therm*te won't work fast enough to sequentially collapse the building, floor by floor. You can claim that thermite started the collapse and that gravity did the rest but there is no evidence for themite of any sort.

Originally posted by pteridine
I never said that it did.

Okay, so if fire can't cut through steel faster than thermate, why are you claiming that the initiation could be caused by fire but not by thermate?

reply to post by pteridine

I claim that gravity was sufficient to account for the speed of collapse and no additional demolitions were necessary.

Actually i think explained fairly well why the building did not collapse because of gravity acting alone....I am a structural engineer...and the reason being why is TIME....if it collapsed from just the gravity alone there is actual slowling process and the main structure below would be absorbing the kinetic energy...because as the force of the top of the builing is acting on the main body the ain body is exactiong that same force on the upper part.
So TIME is the issue here...when the top is cruching down there is what is called a Crush up effect.
The energy is being absorbed and sent down the entire height of the lower structure....THIS IS STEEL...the central core are massive beams...they would have to buckle and sway and that would be SEEN...As for the slownes of the reaction...heck.....the reaction could have been taking place 10mins before the collapse who was to know when...And frankly i have to agree with BS on this...why would you feel fires were a more consistant reaction to cause progressive collapse.
I have a little a home experiment for you....take some paint cans....stack up about say 10 remove the 9th one from the top holding the 10th one at the same height i was standing...Now drop it.
Now in engineering this would be a scaled down experiment of a symetrical structure....and you will notice how the lower part of the absorbs the impact and you will notice how most times the can will just get stopped in its tracks and sit on top....now put all the cans on a scale and do the same ....and notice how the force is transfered through the entire stack...then take off the other cans hold the can one can high above the scale and drop it...and see what happens...everyone can do this simple yet credible experiment at home.
now i am not going to tell you what happens ...put please comeback with your results now also hold the top can at the ten can height and drop it onto the scale....and see what happens when the can actually has time to accelerate due to gravity......
nothing is so black and white anymore is it?
This is simple scaled down physics....and yes it does apply....it is how things are done in the REAL world.

Note: added a example

Originally posted by plube
I have a little a home experiment for you....take some paint cans....stack up about say 10 remove the 9th one from the top holding the 10th one at the same height i was standing...Now drop it.
Now in engineering this would be a scaled down experiment of a symetrical structure....and you will notice how the lower part of the absorbs the impact and you will notice how most times the can will just get stopped in its tracks and sit on top....now put all the cans on a scale and do the same ....and notice how the force is transfered through the entire stack...then take off the other cans hold the can one can high above the scale and drop it...and see what happens...everyone can do this simple yet credible experiment at home.
now i am not going to tell you what happens ...put please comeback with your results now also hold the top can at the ten can height and drop it onto the scale....and see what happens when the can actually has time to accelerate due to gravity......
nothing is so black and white anymore is it?
This is simple scaled down physics....and yes it does apply....it is how things are done in the REAL world.

And you call yourself an engineer? Shame on you. Comparing a building with paint cans, and somehow claiming that they behave the same. Its like driving a car from a building to prove a plane can't possibly fly.

As for the last few posts, are you truthers really only capable of understanding something when it is completely dumbed down and offered in the form of easy to digest Youtube chunks? Are you allergic to reason and logic? The point pteridine is making very simple and easy to grasp. Thermate can not have been used during the collapse as it reacts too slow. So it can only have been used before the collapse. That is basically all he is saying. How anyone can get to the idea that this means that fires cut through steel faster than thermate is kind of delusional.

there is no evidence for themite of any sort.

This statement is completely false and has been proven by science. Not only did Jones find iron rich spears so did USGS, and by making such false claims, in my opinion, it proves that there are people who have a genuine dislike for the truth.

Not only did Jones and a team of scientists examining the dust sample, find iron rich spheroids, so did the USGS, and it is documented in their report.

2005: USGS Documents Iron-Rich Spheroids
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Spheroids have shape and chemical composition of aluminothermic residues
Miniscule iron-rich spheroids are one of the main products of the reaction of nano-thermites, conventional thermites producing iron-rich condensate in larger forms. Iron spheroids in the dust were documented in a 2005 USGS compilation of data from dust studies, the Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, which contains photographs and elemental analysis of three such particles. The size, shape, and chemical composition of the particles match those of the ignition products of nano-thermites.

911research.wtc7.net...

Aluminothermic Residues
Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics

911research.wtc7.net...

I suppose the debunkers will claim USGS Documents are a lie to, because they are claiming everything else is, and science that proves anything other than the OS, is all a lie, there is nothing more to debate with these people.

reply to post by -PLB-


Are you absolutely off your rocker....I think you are...wind tunnel testing....ship testing....even rollercoaster testing...is done to scale....that is a very simple test that anyone can do...physics dont change by the size...the force of gravity acting on the structure is the same...so i added a video for people like you...and i am an Engineer i don't just call myself one...so thank very much for the snarky remarks.....It is part of material testing also....so my friend...watch and learn....Man to just jump in and show your complete and utter ignorance in such a fashion is incredible.
I guess it must be your turn to come and try to deny.....hmmm...the tag team match...

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Are you absolutely off your rocker....I think you are...wind tunnel testing....ship testing....even rollercoaster testing...is done to scale....that is a very simple test that anyone can do...physics dont change by the size...the force of gravity acting on the structure is the same...so i added a video for people like you...and i am an Engineer i don't just call myself one...so thank very much for the snarky remarks.....It is part of material testing also....so my friend...watch and learn....Man to just jump in and show your complete and utter ignorance in such a fashion is incredible.
I guess it must be your turn to come and try to deny.....hmmm...the tag team match...

edit on 033131p://f54Monday by plube because: (no reason given)

And they use scale models of a plane for that, not scale model of a car. Paint cans are nothing like the WTC buildings, the only similarity is that they are usually made of steel.

Lets just put your model to another test: Stack 5 paint cans on top of each other, and place firecrackers all around them. Now ignite all the firecrackers. You will see there is no progressive collapse. Undeniable proof that demolition charges could not have destroyed the buildings.

Yes, that experiment is as silly as yours, and proves as little as yours.

reply to post by -PLB-


once again you haven't a clue....what they are is a SYMETRICAL structure.....of all the same consistancy....just as the towers are....that is what is required to show the physics involved...so please go back to School and learn a few things will you.....because it is a scale down experiment...and it is VIABLE as and example....so please....can you not learn a few things....but just because i am kind....i will show you some more info....
lets look indepth shall we.




yes these are just youtubers.....sorry but this is on youtube but these are not the ones who placed it there.



Now this backs up the simple explaination about the time earlier...and i was a lot more generous with the numbers...but hey...you believe what you like...i am not going to resort to calling you names.

now the first vid is of a Mit proffessor....hmmm I gues he doesn't know what he is talking about either...why Is it when someone go against the OS all of a sudden their years of trainng and skills becomes an issue...i find that intriguing....and extremely biggoted.

now many peole will say top down demoitions are done...and yes they are...now i would like people to show one....just one...top down demolition done with a STEEL core.....

But People will still try to show this is the case with Concrete structures....also take note that the demolitions that are being shown are buildings without even a concrete central core configuration....now the point os saying that there is no comparison the comparision in in the physics...not you analogy of a car and a plane is fivoulous...because depending on what is accelrating the car it could travel futher and further in horizontal distance....but it will take the same amount of time to still impact the earth due to the constant of gravity acting upon it.

reply to post by plube


I have some experience in this field as well and I am suspicious of the validity of the information in your post.

Where did you get your degree?

What have you worked on?

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-

 

once again you haven't a clue....what they are is a SYMETRICAL structure.....of all the same consistancy....just as the towers are....that is what is required to show the physics involved...so please go back to School and learn a few things will you.....because it is a scale down experiment...and it is VIABLE as and example....so please....can you not learn a few things....but just because i am kind....i will show you some more info....
lets look indepth shall we.

Total nonsense. Stacked paint cans are incapable of progressive collapse, also when using explosives or thermite. Your model would disproof the controlled demolition theory as well. The involved physics aren't anything alike.

Now this backs up the simple explaination about the time earlier.

...

but it will take the same amount of time to still impact the earth due to the constant of gravity acting upon it.

Youtube videos... Where are the scientific publications?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I recieved my Degree at BCIT and i have worked on many different buildings around the Vancouver area...and please tell me what you find suspect...because i am not the Structural Engineer that is Questioning the fall of the towers...mostly the time of the fall...and how the mass was able to penetrate the Entire lower structure of the towers...now i did make a mistake....because i did simplify ...the symetrical bit...the towers were not symetrical in thier construction...the base of the towers used more robust materials in the first twenty floors of the towers...so it had even more structural integrity than the upper...and please tell me where you have gotten your degree...even though it really does not make much difference does it....as long as the physics works....now i will give Jeff King many more regards than myself as he is even more experienced than i...and that is the thing is it not....learning from others ...now just to give some due....you have Rayan Mackey debunking from the otherside...so you have profeesionals on opposing sides of the arguments...now please point out some things...because i guess if we could all just go out in our backyards and rebuild the towers and do a full scale test then that would be a better approach...but you have major networks with programs like Nat Geo showing a ridiculous skirt around a beam without controling the blast or the direction and saying thermite will not cut steel...then you have an Engineer like Jon Cole who actuallly makes a LOW GRADE thermate...and does the experiment and low and behold he demonstrates you can cut steel....
Please give credit where credit is due....Now i say the same thing....I am not an expert in Demolition...but i do have commonsense....a Engineering background....and do not agree with the OS....Now i know the example is simple but sometimes you need to keep it simple....where you have th likes of Rayan Mackey making thingsout to be so serious complicated that you baffle the regular Joe with BS....
now you have experience with this...so tell me how since this is a relatively first in the history of Steel Constructed buildings to undergo progressive collapse...in three instances on the same site for different reasons....well i guess miracles do happen.
also please explain to me with your experience how the Central just...VANISHES...because you do have experience you would also question how the beams would just come down upon themselves with out resistance...and almost no visible effect from crush up.