Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
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?




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

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.
This is not some silly debate. We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else. Where have you been?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed

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.
This is not some silly debate. We are talking about murder and treason, covered up and pinned on someone else. Where have you been?


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?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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?


I do in fact try to keep an open mind. I simply refuse to accept any explanation that needs to religiously rely upon the "sinister secret agent" excuse. It's a kissing cousin to Bible thumpers claiming all the world's problems are being caused by invisible demonic agents of Satan whispering evil thoughts in our ear and I've had my fill of that circular logic before the 9/11 attack ever even happened.

...and what does that have anything to do with "can we agree that we need more investigations? It was a question YOU asked, after all, so if you had no intention of accepting my answer regardless of what it was, then why did you waste my time AND yours by asking it?

It was because I gave you an answer you weren't expecting, wasn't it?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

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?


Well, Pteredine, one thing I must admit is that I was wrong on one account. I thought it would take a few days for the truthers to make this thread deteriorate into a childish pillow fight. Dillweed is actually making that happen right now. So much for a reasonable discussion about the Jonathan Cole video.
edit on 22-6-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Your sanctimonious stance is transparent. You've just started another thread elsewhere on ats where you have the nerve to continue your charade of 'open mindedness'. You're not interested in the truth, because if you were you wouldn't waste so much time and effort trying to explain a lie. As long as you insist on acting as though you care about justice, expect some of us to call you a fraud.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

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?


I have been in the real world where I never hear any truther arguments. In a murder case, a statement such as yours would mean you are dismissed from the jury.

The analogous situation would be claiming that the police forensic teams can't testify in court because they are suspicious because they don't believe in the murder and instead claim it was accidental / suicide etc.

No court would ever accept such a biased approach.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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.

He's certainly shown that thermate is more capable than some people think, but compare this to the speed and accuracy of a 'proper' demolition explosive:



It would be hard to imagine comparing the timing of thermite to this LSC. As a result we can say that theories that involve precise thermite timing (down to tenths of seconds) are not plausible. Would you agree?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

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)

The problem with the 'nano-thermite' theory is that it's really an attempt to have the best of both worlds. I've been commenting on this on this site a lot recently.

They want to have you believe there's a super high speed accurate explosive that is also undetectable by normal mechanisms. The problem is though that it ignores the actual physical mechanism behind cutting charges. They turn into gas in fractions of a second and propel a jet of copper through the steel. By replacing that with heating and melting, there obviously cannot be the same amount of control, no matter how fast it reacts.

There's also the problem of the lack of any real evidence for this as a mechanism, although i'll admit at least it is more plausible than many of the theories I have heard.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

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?

There are a number of reasons, the first is the general velocity and force imparted. The propellant of the copper is a material (RDX or similar) which turns to gas in milliseconds or below, far faster than thermite is going to manage. The second issue is the geometry. Linear Shaped Charges are specifically offset from the columns in order to ensure the copper jet is as flat and dense as possible. It's not possible to do the same with thermite.



As to being undetectable, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Booms and bangs. Some conspiracy theorists will tell you that you can have a supersonic explosion but with no shockwave.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

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..........


Yes it has been done to death, but sorry, I don't see "explosive deconstruction". I see a building collapsing beginning at the point where large planes full of jet fuel impacted a high velocity. I'm no structural engineer, so just my personal lay opinion, but I've yet to see any evidence of explosives being involved at all (in the case of WTC1 and 2 at least). Now WTC7 is another ballgame though. Not sure I buy the NIST hypothesis on that one at all.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


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.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

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.

I don't think we actually disagree much here. I do agree that he's shown that thermite can be surprisingly effective in severing columns and I also agree that it could be refined somewhat. However, this is a long way from being an effective demolition tool. Following the arguments from the conspiracy side, we need to be accurate within tenths of seconds in order to demolish floors continuously. That is what I have been arguing.


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.

I don't really want to make any claims as to what should be considered and what shouldn't be, there's a much wider range of conditions that need to be matched to qualify as a potential candidate.

My general argument here has been that while thermite was capable of cutting some columns in a well controlled test, there's a huge gap between that and a plausible thermite demolition theory. We don't even know what exactly the thermite is supposed to be attacking, for example.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

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.


I live 20 miles from Disney World, every night I know when its 10 o'clock I can hear the fireworks going off.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
lol you don't need copper with thermite. silly debunkers....thermite is dense enough to cut when propelled

you can weld with thermite, insult to me as i am a welder.. and plus trains would have a problem if ya couldn't.
source
en.wikipedia.org...
and the only real argument debunkers can fall back on is to relate us to bible bashes. because if.. sorry.. but because of what we are saying is factual, not just theory, then there is a bogyman, named politics... world politics...
America. soo far up other peoples business they cant possibly be doing the same things to there own people?
yet they have





new topics




 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join