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 Mr_pointy
visual evidence of thermite reactions
You can identify thermite on sight, through a photo? Wow, we'll never need to analyse any substance ever again, we'll just ask you.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Don't just read the bolded part, read the whole thing, that is never their arguement. point 1 covers:
1. Doesn't look like any demo ever done
2. They cover the how the charges couldn't have been planted, and wouldn't survive the impact
3. They cover the prep work needed, for which there is no evidence
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
A pdf is a type of file format, it seems to be commonly used by professionals.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Patents mean nothing, you can patent anything, and from what i've heard, they are bulky, and can't penetrate far, only an inch or 2.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
This is not a peer reviewed work, it was something he wrote on his own time to counter CTers.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
You want a source that was never give? Fine.
911myths.com...
There's a picture
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I'm sorry, you expect people to be able to identify the type of metal on sight.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Meaningless, unless you can show that because of that he's lying somehow.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
What would this prove, we wouldn't be able to read it properly, we don't know how.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Because they're private, they can't present them legally, and he wouldn't release the names for privacy reasons.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Again, not a peer reviewed paper.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Why would they bother, you guys aren't that important to them.
Well, a visual is all that we ever had a chance to get, considering the fact that FEMA and CDI came in immediately and took all the damn evidence away.
1. So? They ASSUME all CD happens the same. This is a special case.
2. They assume WAY too much and show no calculations for the amount of HE.
3. Again, all based on HE assumptions which are not documented. Just their opinion.
From what you have heard?? WOW... Now I am REALLY CONVINCED!!! Read the patent... Arguing with you is an act in futility.
Then he should have included data, photos, referrences, citations, seiemic records, etc. as this is THE BASIS for his GARBAGE OP/ED piece.
Sorry... I meant a real source. Not some "debunker" site.
What other type of columns were the towers constructed of that look like a steel cloumn?
He has to prove his case... which he has not done for the reasons outlined TWICE above. It is to him to make his case if he is going to 'publish' a 'paper'. It needs no 'debunking' as it is a simple OP/ED piece and NOT a scientific paper.
If you are going to present an ASSUMPTION based on DATA, you typically PRESENT THE DATA.
Then they should not be used as a basis for his argument... I have pictures of UFOs... SO THERE... TAKE THAT UFOs EXIST! (but I cannot show you the photos) That is how silly your argument sounds. Like a child saying... "I know but I'm not telling."
Citations are not limited to peer reviewed papers. Do you know what a citation is?
Obviously important enough to write as you state he "wrote it to counter CTers". Next time he may want to include some form of actual data or SCIENCE then maybe anyone will care about his opinion based drivel.
Anyhoo... In the future do not expect a lot of typing from me as i find your "arguments" to be generally without basis, merit, data, facts or science and also see them as quite trite. I am sure I am not alone in these feelings.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Patents mean nothing, you can patent anything...
Patenting is a time consuming process which can take as long as five years to complete. The process of getting a patent involves filing an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, paying the applicable fees, and responding to office actions.
At the bare minimum going through entire patent process, including attorney’s fees, can take an estimated $1000-$4000 for a simple mechanical or electrical invention, or an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 for a very complex computer or high-tech related product.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Well, a visual is all that we ever had a chance to get, considering the fact that FEMA and CDI came in immediately and took all the damn evidence away.
OK, so we agree this isn't any evidence of this, what's your proof that they removed the evidence?
OK, BRAINIAC. Think. Planes hit two towers, and they collapse. Immediately after they collapse, dump trucks come in to take away debris, and the cleanup begins. The towers, were a crime scene, of an immense terrorist attack. A thorough investigation of the wreckage should have been done, but instead, it was all taken away.
Not true, patents are actualy dificult to obtain and the product being patented has to have a practical use.
And they're expensive. Most ppl wouldn't spend a lot to patent something that was worthless.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
No, they don't.
Most people wouldn't patent these things, true. How expensive is a patent for a non technical invention?
In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,”
But if a product has a patent it has to do what the patent says it does, however silly it may seem to you.
Patents such as the motionless generator illustrate that a patent is not a certification that a device will work. Examiners assess patent applications according to four criteria: novelty, usefulness, nonobviousness and enablement, the last of which means that the patent must disclose how to construct the patented device. A device that does not work as claimed should be rejected for failing usefulness and enablement, but initially the burden of disproof is on the examiner. Statements of fact in a patent application are presumed true unless a good reason for doubt is found. The device has only to be " more likely than not" to work.
At the bare minimum going through entire patent process, including attorney’s fees, can take an estimated $1000-$4000 for a simple mechanical or electrical invention, or an estimated $10,000 to $20,000 for a very complex computer or high-tech related product.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful”. The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
the fact that no explosions could be heard, is actually quite a strong peice of evidence that there may have not been bombs in the building after all.
Are you kidding me have you not heard the countless fdny and witness testimony stating explosions that they heard throughout the building.
Eye-witness and holidaymaker Mary Stewart reported hearing a huge explosion before seeing flames engulf the complex.
Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They don't consider something that demolitionists never use? Shocking. Incendiaries burn down, they could never take out a vertical core.
Originally posted by Vushta
Just scanning this thread..but, you have the problem compounded by not only rigging charges, but now you have to clamp on some sort of bracket?? That just makes it more implausible.