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

Originally posted by FDNY343
I've given you the information needed.

I have taken the liberty of emailing Dr. Sission to see if he would provide me another copy.

I will update you with any information.

PS. It blasts your delusions to pieces.

Take your time getting your resources together. It'll be interesting to see what this guy proved and how.

But if it's like anything else you've been posting then I'm afraid I'm not going to have the opportunity to have my "delusions" blasted to pieces.

Originally posted by FDNY343
I'm confused......

You said it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

We have thermitic material that is painted on and that won't stay ignited.

"won't stay ignited".. Again, you are looking at the remains of a substance after its intended use.

What separates your reality and my reality, is that my reality is based only on facts, and the official story is based on none. You always try to paint me as coming here to make positive claims, but you should know better than that by now. Fallacious reasoning seems to be the only corner you have left to hide in.

You are so confused about this. The red chips were supposedly active material not material "after its intended use." If it was thermite, it wouldn't appear as red chips after its intended use, would it? So much for your fact based reality. It extinguished itself in the DSC as can be seen in the paper [figure 26.] There were 10 to 100 tons of them in the dust according to Jones. Ten to 100 tons that didn't go off; maybe it was paint, after all.

I know that you have neither the intellect nor the constitution to make and defend any positive claims and that is the thing that actually separates our respective realities. Find a nice, trollish corner to hide in.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You mean this subway?

www.life.com...

Among others, yes.

Originally posted by bsbray11

This subway was where all the air was coming from, to create what you must say was equivalent to a blast furnace to reach those temperatures?:

www.life.com...

www.life.com...

Blast furnace to rech 1800 deg. F? Not hardly.

Originally posted by bsbray11

On top of that, they were isolated in relation to the vast majority of Ground Zero, because it's not like they were a massive open area underneath the whole complex.

Actually, there was.

www.rkchin.com...

What were you saying?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Let's see how many photos you can find of a single desk or chair from the rubble pile. Cabinet, any large piece of furniture, or how much flammable material in general compared to steel and concrete dust. Come on now, don't be bashful.

So, are you trying to say that because I don't have a picture of a chair, that there were no combustable material in the rubble piles? That's rediculous. unless you're one of those "they were vacant" guys. If that is the case, there is no hope for you.

BTW, I already showed a picture of a mail/food cart, and a car.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by FDNY343
I'm confused......

You said it.

edit on 21-1-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

So, why don't you clarify how thermite fits into your theory? So far, I have seen nothing.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Blast furnace to rech 1800 deg. F? Not hardly.

So how'd the steel reach those temperatures again? Have you read your own links?

Originally posted by bsbray11
On top of that, they were isolated in relation to the vast majority of Ground Zero, because it's not like they were a massive open area underneath the whole complex.

Actually, there was.

www.rkchin.com...

What were you saying?

I'm not seeing a massive open area. Maybe you think the floor you just linked me to doesn't actually exist?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Let's see how many photos you can find of a single desk or chair from the rubble pile. Cabinet, any large piece of furniture, or how much flammable material in general compared to steel and concrete dust. Come on now, don't be bashful.

So, are you trying to say that because I don't have a picture of a chair, that there were no combustable material in the rubble piles? That's rediculous. unless you're one of those "they were vacant" guys. If that is the case, there is no hope for you.

I'm saying if you can't even find a picture of some of this combustible material then that just goes to show how much there really was. You were the one saying how much there was. I thought you'd already know. Just find a chair, cabinet, desk, whatever. I'm not saying you can't find one, I'm saying see how many you can find. You might could find one if you looked long enough. And the hope thing, coming from you, doesn't really mean much to me.

Originally posted by pteridine
You are so confused about this. The red chips were supposedly active material not material "after its intended use."

You're the one who's confused because you're not reading what I'm saying. Read what I just quoted for you:

We cannot determine
at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted
from the application method or the manner of reaction.
While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive.

In other words after this stuff would have reacted, these little chips could be all that's left because of how thin they are, because of being in a nook or cranny where only a limited amount could be applied. So what you were saying about the reaction being incapable of sustaining itself, doesn't debunk the contentions of the paper at all.

maybe it was paint, after all.

And maybe you can't keep up with a scientific debate, after all.

After the video that was posted on the other thread page showing all the characteristics of the chips that refuting them being paint, and you're still promoting that crap with 0 evidence... Well I'm not surprised.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm saying if you can't even find a picture of some of this combustible material then that just goes to show how much there really was. You were the one saying how much there was. I thought you'd already know. Just find a chair, cabinet, desk, whatever. I'm not saying you can't find one, I'm saying see how many you can find. You might could find one if you looked long enough. And the hope thing, coming from you, doesn't really mean much to me.

So you actually are demanding to see recognizable objects that is combustable after 2x 110 floors of buildings full of it collapsed and compressed floors to near 1/5 of their original size? Ok, lets have some fun with bsbray at your expense:

Take a cabinet, carpeting, phones, couple computes, tables, chairs, a whole ton of paper. Throw it all into a trash compactor, then a wood chipper, and then set it on fire and throw it into a burning building right when the roof collapses on it, and then wait about a week. Then I want you find me the cabinet, carpeting, telephones, etc.

You know, sometimes bsbray, you make some logical sounding arguements, that make me think you are actually thinking critically about certain topics, then you turn around and pull this garbage out of your end, and I go, what the heck are you talking about? Do you know how ignorant you sound right now? No logical thinking whatsoever in your argument.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So how'd the steel reach those temperatures again? Have you read your own links?

Yes, I most certainly have. 1800 deg. F in a hydrocarbon fire is really quite easy to achieve. In fact, most house fires reach that and more.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not seeing a massive open area. Maybe you think the floor you just linked me to doesn't actually exist?

So, you don't understand the map? Gotcha.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm saying if you can't even find a picture of some of this combustible material then that just goes to show how much there really was. You were the one saying how much there was. I thought you'd already know. Just find a chair, cabinet, desk, whatever. I'm not saying you can't find one, I'm saying see how many you can find. You might could find one if you looked long enough. And the hope thing, coming from you, doesn't really mean much to me.

I am sure that I can. I mean, I found a mailcart. Do you think all the furnishings just disappeared?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
You are so confused about this. The red chips were supposedly active material not material "after its intended use."

You're the one who's confused because you're not reading what I'm saying. Read what I just quoted for you:

We cannot determine
at this time, however, whether the thinness of the chips resulted
from the application method or the manner of reaction.
While the application of a thin film might have suited
specific desired outcomes, it is also possible that the quenching
effect of the steel the material was in contact with may
have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting.
The fact that most of the chips have a distinctive gray layer
suggests that the unreacted material was in close contact
with something else, either its target, a container, or an adhesive.

In other words after this stuff would have reacted, these little chips could be all that's left because of how thin they are, because of being in a nook or cranny where only a limited amount could be applied. So what you were saying about the reaction being incapable of sustaining itself, doesn't debunk the contentions of the paper at all.

So from this statement we see Jones' trying to brush over the implausibility of this theory and you bought it. First, he claims 10 to 100 tons of the red chips, unreacted, are in the dust. Does that sound like a "nooks and crannies" worth to you? Then he says, " it is also possible that the quenching effect of the steel the material was in contact with may have prevented a thin film of a larger mass from reacting" meaning that this thin layer was unreacted because it was in contact with the steel and the larger mass went off leaving a thin film on the steel. If a larger mass went off, why didn't it melt the steel and the thin film if it is such an energetic material? This is the part that Jones didn't think about.
We see no evidence of partially reacted thin film, do we? We know what partially reacted red chips look like because they are a product of the DSC. We see a gray layer that supposedly was the target material and a pristine red layer with no evidence of having reacted. The reaction being incapable of sustaining itself invalidates Jones' claims.

He claimed a super thermite that, when ignited, would not stay lit. He claimed a super thermite that would work very well and, when nearing steel, its target, would then be quenched by the mass of the steel. Amusingly, this probably makes perfect sense to you.

reply to post by pteridine


I was just wondering the same thing. How can this special super dooper nano-thermite that is so high tech: A) not react fully on ignition and temps above its ignition point and B) get quenched by the massive steel body leaving behind a thin layer?

Even a high school chem teacher can see how rediculous that sounds. I've never heard of a thin layer of thermite or thermate not reacting fully because of it touching the object and getting quenched by the mass of steel. Wouldn't the high temperature of the reaction cause that tiny thin layer to react as well? We are not talking about temperatures of 100F, but 3,000-4,000F and higher. Some say its even 3 times higher than the temperature of lava. So how the hell did it miss consuming itself in that inferno??

My "BS'o'Meter" just went off the scale with this nonsense. Jones' work is fraudulent, and the alleged "peer-reviewers" should have caught even this obvious failure and BS. The layer didnt react because the steel mass quenched the heat, causing it to stay unreacted. Isnt that amazing pteridine? A micro-layer of super dooper thermite resisted 4,000F molten steel, all because of the steel mass. histerical!!!!

So Jones current theory is that the stuff that was supposed to cut through the steel columns was actually cooled down by the columns to such a low temperature that it stopped reacting, leaving a thin layer behind? So by his own account the material he examined did no damage what so ever to the columns? In that case, what was the purpose of it? Did the conspirators place it in the buildings just to cause confusion? And if the examined material didn't do any damage, what did cause the buildings to collapse according to Jones (and his followers)?

Originally posted by -PLB-
So Jones current theory is that the stuff that was supposed to cut through the steel columns was actually cooled down by the columns to such a low temperature that it stopped reacting, leaving a thin layer behind? So by his own account the material he examined did no damage what so ever to the columns? In that case, what was the purpose of it? Did the conspirators place it in the buildings just to cause confusion? And if the examined material didn't do any damage, what did cause the buildings to collapse according to Jones (and his followers)?

You were wrong about everything else so far, why would you be right of a sudden?

reply to post by Cassius666


Do you have an answer for the huge hole in Jones' magic fake thermite issue? Can you explain at all why a whole bunch of super dooper nano-thermite would react, but then once it got to the layer contacting the steel mass, it all of a sudden stopped, leaving behind a thin layer of unreacted paint on nano-thermite? Can you explain how that works?

reply to post by Cassius666



What does Jones theory has to do with me being right or wrong? Claiming I have been wrong about everything is a lie in an attempt to discredit me. (notice I use the word "lie" correctly, as you know it is not true). You want to discredit me because I bring up a very inconvenient issue. Do realize that you only fool yourself, and maybe some fellow believers.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Yes, I most certainly have. 1800 deg. F in a hydrocarbon fire is really quite easy to achieve. In fact, most house fires reach that and more.

You should know if you are really a firefighter that open air room fire cannot reach those temperatures in an hour.

Even if they did it does not mean the steel reached anything close to the room temp again especially in only an hour. Surely you understand thermal transference?

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C (1800F).

www.doctorfire.com...

It takes 4 hours to reach 1800F in a fire TEST, no real world fire is as efficient as a tests where everything is controlled and max temperatures are reached. An open air fire starved of oxygen is not going to reach its max temperatures, again especially in an hour.

Then to expect the heat to transfer to the steel to heat it to failure in an hour is ridiculous imo.

I'd love to see a debunker put this to the test for themselves.

reply to post by ANOK


Why is there a 1 hour restriction? The fires burned "weeks to months". And I don't think you can use a room fire time-temperature curve for collapsed buildings. If you think you can, your source clearly agrees that temperatures above 1800F are possible.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Yes, I most certainly have. 1800 deg. F in a hydrocarbon fire is really quite easy to achieve. In fact, most house fires reach that and more.

Fire, yes. Steel, no. Look up the Cardington tests and their data. Entropy, time, sustaining a fuel source, steel being a heat sink and many other issues prevent the steel from reaching the exact temperature of the fire.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not seeing a massive open area. Maybe you think the floor you just linked me to doesn't actually exist?

So, you don't understand the map? Gotcha.

Are you not showing me a map of a structure? Floors, walls, stores, literally tons of solid mass, and many more tons of solid mass above and below = open area? You either misunderstand me completely or have a different definition for the phrase "open area." I guess you think the subway photos I showed you, showed a nice open airway too.

I am sure that I can. I mean, I found a mailcart. Do you think all the furnishings just disappeared?

No, I'm not saying anything "disappeared," but it would make no difference if I did because this about your argument and not about me. You said there was all these combustibles for underground fires. I can link you to a video of a firefighter talking about how he didn't find any furnishings larger than the keypad of a phone.

Originally posted by GenRadek

So you actually are demanding to see recognizable objects that is combustable after 2x 110 floors of buildings full of it collapsed and compressed floors to near 1/5 of their original size?

So you must already know all those combustibles were destroyed. Thanks for the support.

Take a cabinet, carpeting, phones, couple computes, tables, chairs, a whole ton of paper. Throw it all into a trash compactor, then a wood chipper, and then set it on fire and throw it into a burning building right when the roof collapses on it, and then wait about a week. Then I want you find me the cabinet, carpeting, telephones, etc.

What if instead you take some chewing gum, a paper clip, a lawn mower and some egg salad and figure out what you just proved? (Nothing.)

You know, sometimes bsbray, you make some logical sounding arguements, that make me think you are actually thinking critically about certain topics, then you turn around and pull this garbage out of your end, and I go, what the heck are you talking about? Do you know how ignorant you sound right now? No logical thinking whatsoever in your argument.

That's really flattering coming from someone who just compared the WTC collapses to a trash compactor followed by a wood chipper followed by burning, with the goal of somehow debunking the fact that it's hard to find any intact combustibles at all at Ground Zero. Sometimes I guess you just get so caught up in your ranting that you forget what the point was supposed to be.