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.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, until you're willing to remove the statement at the bottom of your posts, you cannot be taken seriously, because it identifies where you stand. You want to appear as though you have an open mind, but your history says otherwise. Don't you read what you write?
This is not some silly debate. We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else. Where have you been?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, until you're willing to remove the statement at the bottom of your posts, you cannot be taken seriously, because it identifies where you stand. You want to appear as though you have an open mind, but your history says otherwise. Don't you read what you write?
So let me get this straight. If someone sees the evidence and is not convinced by it, they "cannot be taken seriously" because they have come to a conclusion.
On the other hand, if someone sees the evidence and is convinced by it, then that's perfectly fine and they should continue to post about how 911 was an inside job?
You're not being logically consistent here. I've never seen anything remotely dubious in Dave's posting. He seems a perfectly straight up debate opponent to me.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
It may be a "strawman" argument, but I believe it originated in the OS camp with the claim that thermite/thermate/vegemite/whatever cannot cut steel.
Originally posted by dillweed
This is not some silly debate. We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else. Where have you been?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, until you're willing to remove the statement at the bottom of your posts, you cannot be taken seriously, because it identifies where you stand. You want to appear as though you have an open mind, but your history says otherwise. Don't you read what you write?
So let me get this straight. If someone sees the evidence and is not convinced by it, they "cannot be taken seriously" because they have come to a conclusion.
On the other hand, if someone sees the evidence and is convinced by it, then that's perfectly fine and they should continue to post about how 911 was an inside job?
You're not being logically consistent here. I've never seen anything remotely dubious in Dave's posting. He seems a perfectly straight up debate opponent to me.
Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Dave, until you're willing to remove the statement at the bottom of your posts, you cannot be taken seriously, because it identifies where you stand. You want to appear as though you have an open mind, but your history says otherwise. Don't you read what you write?
Originally posted by pteridine
We are discussing the collapse of the WTC. Your position in this discussion is that "We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else."
Based on the evidence you could have said "We are talking about terrorism and murder, designed to attract the attention of the world to the position of Islamic extremists."
Where have you been?
Originally posted by dillweed
This is not some silly debate. We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else. Where have you been?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
It may be a "strawman" argument, but I believe it originated in the OS camp with the claim that thermite/thermate/vegemite/whatever cannot cut steel.
Thermite/thermate/vegemite/whatever was specifically invented becuase it's a compound that burns hotter than the melting point of steel (or else you'd never have heard of it), so logically, throw enough thermite/thermate/vegemite/whatever at a steel beam and it will naturally cut it (with "cut" being subjective. It will realistically make enough of a sloppy mess of it until it separates it into separate pieces). What the (as you call it) OS camp almost certainly said is that it's a horribly impractical way to be bringing a building down.
You saw in the video how much of the stuff you'd need to cut a simple I-beam, so for gigantic box columns like what the WTC had you'd need a pile of sandbags piled around the column like a New Orleans levee needed to be shored up...and it wouldn't be just one column, it would be against every column, on every floor, in TWO buildings. There is literally no way, shape, or form sich a thing could have been concealed from the occupants of the building regardless of how many sinister secret agents are assigned to the project, so if you can't get past that, then no conspiracy claim based upon that scenario can ever hold water.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
While I understand what your saying, I think Jonathan Cole has effectively shown that a very small quantity of thermate, when properly focused, can in fact cut through a steel beam in a very short period of time and, depending on the orientation of the device, in any direction.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
Agreed. Although we must remember that he was using "backyard" thermate. Nano-scale incendiaries (LLL) are in a whole different ballpark when talking about reaction times. (Please, I'm not here to argue the validity of Jones' paper)
Originally posted by Flatcoat
But isn't a thermitic reaction just a rapid oxidation with iron being the by-product (assuming iron oxide is used)? What's the benefit of a jet of copper over a jet of iron?
As to being undetectable, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Originally posted by stirling
This subject has been so done to death that it amazes me every time somebody denies the explosive deconstruction of these buidings.
To blindly follow the goverment claptrap, and double speak, after all the very real counter evidence that has come to light.....Thats has to be the hieght of denial..........
Originally posted by Flatcoat
Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Not necessarily over reaction times, but I think J. Cole proved fairly conclusively that with a little ingenuity and some box steel the resulting jet of iron can be accurately controlled. Imagine the fine tuning that could be achieved with some real study and resources.
As to the question of noise I really don't want to argue about that, other than to say that this did occur over a thousand feet in the air, inside a very large furnished building with most of it's windows still intact, and the ensuing rumble and debris field could quite possibly have masked any subsequent blasts. You'll probably disagree, but I personally believe it to be a plausible scenario. At least worth considering.
Originally posted by Flatcoat
As to the question of noise I really don't want to argue about that, other than to say that this did occur over a thousand feet in the air.