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.

 

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

page: 9
420
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
These govt cronies on ATS really think people are stupid. Nano-thermite (a refined version of thermite) was found in the dust. Mr Cole clearly shows that a more basic form can do the job quite well. You might be able to foll the mass public, but here on ATS, are some of the most critical thinkers on the face our our wonderful planet and that back peddling garbage which is spewed from your mouths will be ripped to shreds like it already has time and time again. Any average person that believes the OS would question it without a doubt when presented the amount of evidence as there has been already in numerous threads on this site. So logically, the very minimal amount of people (I think I counted 3 maybe four) that have commented on this thread defending the govt OS (very poorly) are only doing so because they are being paid to do so. I really can not fathom any other reason they would bring up so much nonsense. Sorry boys, but your time is coming to an end.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by amagnus
 


Of course it can be done but it is difficult to do and takes quite a bit of thermite. Thermate works much better and that is why Cole used it to show that it could be done. There is equivalent evidence for nuclear weapons and lasers and I am waiting for Cole to show that those can cut steel, too. My favorite theory is hacksaws hefted by a division of the Yugoslavian army that were disguised as messengers and elevator repairmen. A uniform is a uniform.


Nuclear weapons? Laserweapons? The only people I hear ever talk about these crazy conspiracy theories are 911 deniers, which fits their profile, seen as they believe in the official conspiracy theory as well, which is just as crazy.

In this corner, guy on conspiracy board who says nanothermite was not found because, because. In that corner, guy with an education in a related field who toegether with colleagues produced a paper over the course of 18 months that allegedly proves that nanothermite has been found at the WTC.

Oh boy oh boy I cant wait to see how this ends

edit on 20-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD
reply to post by Cassius666
 

Maybe not on ATS, but I've been in debates on other forums, and Truthers are usually outnumbered. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of people out there who don't question the OS. Yes, the Truth movement is big and still growing, but I've been seen as crazy/delusional for believing 9/11 was an inside job, and I've only been a Truther for a little over a year.



It is quite clear that governments do not consider citizens to have the right to know the truth about anything other than what they tell you, and that there are delegated people who work for government and military, on the internet to distribute disinfo. I don't care what anybody might say to the contrary, but they are here at ATS like it or not, and not just ATS of course. For those who don't tread the boards of a forum like this, but who do have misgivings of events without really pursuing their misgivings, they would probably call you a "conspiracy theorist"
The immediacy of the internet is often at odds with MSM reporting of events and so often the MSM get it "wrong" never mind that MSM don't always report events of import, as governments can be hostile to MSM reporters who are not on their agenda, and conversely be warming to MSM reporters who are sympathetic. That may seem simplistic and obvious, but it is more likely true.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

What does any of it prove? Nothing. No evidence. Did you see thermate charges going off on every floor in a timed sequence? No. Did Coles thermate react fast enough to cause collapse at the speed we saw? No. Were any ignitors found for the many tons that did go off? No.
Please be a bit more skeptical even though you really want to believe in a conspiracy. There are much better ones out there that might even have a factual basis.


You wouldn't need the cutter charges to be visible for this to happen.

The central core would be what would have to be collapsed and the buildings central core was only damaged at the TOPS OF THE TWO BUILDINGS.

The amount of weight that was supported by the beams at the top of the building that day was negligible compared to any other day.
These things are built sturdy. This building was specifically designed to stand if flown into by a plane.

Each successive collapse would have dissipated kinetic energy. That is why the building was designed to be well...
A BUILDING.
So even if you are right...
I will play your game to get you to answer my question.
You cannot explain how the top of the building, on top of the explosions, had enough kinetic energy to pulverize itself.

That violates physics.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Fame and adulation from the technically challenged is their agenda. It is working, to some extent.


Ah, yes, the old "get fired from tenure at a major university just to seek fame and adulation from stupid people" agenda.... Pure genius. Where I of course am one of the "technically challenged" people whose admiration is apparently so very extremely valuable. "Technically challenged," of course, because I happen to trust Jones', Harrit's and the others' integrities enough to not automatically assume that the iron spheres were already in the sample before he ignited them. Gosh what a fool I am for that.

And of course Jones could have done legitimate work (cough cough) and got recognition just the same, but I guess that makes too much sense to a "technically challenged" person like me to be possibly be true. No, he must do work he secretly knows is false and get fired from his tenure instead. How rewarding that "agenda" must be. It's posts like these that make me such a huge fan of yours, "pteridine." How much time did you spend coming up with this theory of yours anyway? I guess I was just too stupid to deduce that extremely logical motive for myself. Thank you again, pteridine. I don't think I could have ever made such a conclusion myself. Never, ever.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimistPrime
You might be able to foll the mass public, but here on ATS, are some of the most critical thinkers on the face our our wonderful planet and that back peddling garbage which is spewed from your mouths will be ripped to shreds like it already has time and time again.


I admit that I fear those shred ripping most critical thinkers. I'll rue the day when one of them actually posts on ATS. What would you do if that thinker says that the towers fell because of the airplanes running into them?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I understand your admiration. Stick with me, kid, and I'll explain things to you when you get confused.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What would you do if that thinker says that the towers fell because of the airplanes running into them?


I can speak for myself, and what any truly critical thinker would do: ask them to present their evidence, that that's all it took to do the job.



Originally posted by pteridine
I understand your admiration. Stick with me, kid, and I'll explain things to you when you get confused.


Man, I didn't mean to inadvertently stroke your ego. That was the last thing I was trying to accomplish.

Study up on this, kid:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


That last article has a great graphical representation of your theory that 'Jones intentionally got fired to peddle to the stupid', which I notice you already have no intention on actually defending as anything reasonable.





So since you must surely have been joking, what do you really think is the "truther" agenda?
edit on 20-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
You wouldn't need the cutter charges to be visible for this to happen.

The central core would be what would have to be collapsed and the buildings central core was only damaged at the TOPS OF THE TWO BUILDINGS.

The amount of weight that was supported by the beams at the top of the building that day was negligible compared to any other day.
These things are built sturdy. This building was specifically designed to stand if flown into by a plane.

Each successive collapse would have dissipated kinetic energy. That is why the building was designed to be well...
A BUILDING.
So even if you are right...
I will play your game to get you to answer my question.
You cannot explain how the top of the building, on top of the explosions, had enough kinetic energy to pulverize itself.

That violates physics.


If the central core collapsed, why are there videos of the central core standing after the outer columns collapsed?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I checked your links and you seem to harbor feelings of inadequacy. You should look to more positive things and not be so down on yourself.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I think I already found one of those "thinkers" as he has replied to my post. What I would say is exactly what I have already said in my post. They are either an obvious troll, being paid to say it, or just plain ignorant. Which of those 3 do you fit under?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Could you please post some links to your claims of the central core of WTC 1 and 2's that was still standing?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


An expert on the subject produced over 18 months with collagues a paper that says Nanothermite has been found. Some guy on a conspiracy board keeps saying there aint nooo theeeermaaaatttee boooii. I really do not see where we have a debate here. Let him think what he wants to think so everybody is happy.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


I would looooooooove to see a video link of the central core standing all the way up to the point of contact with the airplanes.

PUT UP MY MAN!!!!

Let's see 'em.

Edit to add:
you have been called. I would like to see what you have stated exists or what you further post will be of no consequence to me.
edit on 12/20/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


I think that you may be caught in a logical fallacy. How's this, " Jones is either a clever charlatan, an incompetent egomaniac, or a paid disinformation agent. Which is it?"



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Where's the video link????????????????

Cheers

edit on 12/20/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Paid by who? The so-called terrorists? They must have some extra cash laying around after paying to hide themselves for the last 9 years



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


I think that you may be caught in a logical fallacy. How's this, " Jones is either a clever charlatan, an incompetent egomaniac, or a paid disinformation agent. Which is it?"


Isnt this thread supposed to be about the evidence of Nanothermite? Anything to say about the topic? In one corner, PHD with his colleagues who produced over 18 months a paper that proves thermite was found in the WTC rubble. In the other conspiracyguy prime. GO



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


He cant produce it, just like he cant produce any evidence to back any of his claims. The moon is made of cheese and Santa really does break into everyones houses to drop presents all in 8 hrs according to him. Geez, the audacity of some people.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


This shill can't talk about anything that actually matters!!


Diversion, diversion, diversion....

War by deception. ALWAYS.



new topics

top topics



 
420
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join