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.

 

The Progressive Collapse Challenge

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Once again bsbray you ignore most of my points are rant on about unrelated things.

Reproducable results alone are not scientific.

You need to actually have a hypothesis to work with. Since the challenge's hypothesis is actually attempting to prove a negative, it is unscinetific.

I have shown proof of progressive collapse, whether it fits your con-game challenge or not.

I'm still waiting for some proof that it was a controlled demolition.

Do you have traces of thermite found in the wreckage perhaps?

Maybe a computer model showing the precise timing and detonations so that it fits your challenge.




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Actually there were traces of explosives, and I believe this piece of evidence comes from the nist or fema report. Ofcourse they don't call it eplosives in their report.


And keep waiting for your "proof".

What do you think happend to the evidence of a demolition ? Yes they covered it up. You assume we ninja our way into their archives ?
Or could you just for once look at the clear SIGNS of a demolition.
Everything points to a major cover up... why cover up evidece if muslim extremists did it ?



[edit on 26-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Actually there were traces of explosives, and I believe this piece of evidence comes from the nist or fema report. Ofcourse they don't call it eplosives in their report.


What do they call it then, chewing gum?



What do you think happend to the evidence of a demolition ? Yes they covered it up. You assume we ninja our way into their archives ?
Or could you just for once look at the clear SIGNS of a demolition.
Everything points to a major cover up... why cover up evidece if muslim extremists did it ?



Well if there were “cutting charges” used on the steel, where is the evidence of that? Cutting charges would have left tell tale marks on the ends of the beams.

A lot of engineers looked at those beams when they were still on site. A lot of workers did also, are you telling me that none of them noticed this?


Oh, yeah, they are all afraid for their jobs.





[edit on 26-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Yes howard, chewing gum

Bet it took you a while to come up with that one.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well if there were “cutting charges” used on the steel, where is the evidence of that? Cutting charges would have left tell tale marks on the ends of the beams.

A lot of engineers looked at those beams when they were still on site. A lot of workers did also, are you telling me that none of them noticed this?
Oh, yeah, they are all afraid for their jobs.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by HowardRoark]


Nobody would think anyone would be as insane as Bush&friends in the early days and weeks after the event, it took a lot of people a while to realize. For some even years. Wich is not so hard to understad given the complete media black out on anythig relevant to the events. Everybody was angry at Osama. That doesn't mean nobody knew from the start that it was an inside job.

Now, most engineers were probably not even looking for explosives, as their report shows they were lookig for evidence of how fire brought them down. They didn't study it objectively like they should've.
Not to forget that it was most likely FEMA engineers you're talking about.
You gotta give those guys some credit for coming up with a report that is more sloppy then the warren commision.

Besides that, everytime something came to light it was quickly covered up by another fearsome event, first the anthrax, but then later they found out they could just control the fear by changing the colours of the treath level. And announce a 'possible' terror attack. Like all of a sudden terrorist had declared war upon you.

And keep laughing about those jobs Howard, you're denying the fact that people who do speak up, those who are the REAL patriots, are getting fired,
and being threatened, sometimes even family members.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Once again bsbray you ignore most of my points are rant on about unrelated things.

Reproducable results alone are not scientific.

You need to actually have a hypothesis to work with. Since the challenge's hypothesis is actually attempting to prove a negative, it is unscinetific.

I have shown proof of progressive collapse, whether it fits your con-game challenge or not.

I'm still waiting for some proof that it was a controlled demolition.

Do you have traces of thermite found in the wreckage perhaps?

Maybe a computer model showing the precise timing and detonations so that it fits your challenge.


I've had about enough of feeling obligated to respond to this ranting.

And I actually use the term "rant" correctly here.

I'll start responding to again when you get over the fact that you haven't beat the challenge with those models.


Er, btw - How in the hell do you think thermite could bring down the Twin Towers? Have you ever seen it burn? Short response: thermite burns too slowly and isn't explosive.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Leftbehind's point is valid, you can't prove a negative.


ignoring it won't make it go away.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Leftbehind's point is valid, you can't prove a negative.
ignoring it won't make it go away.


*cough*cough*Bull#*cough*cough*

"Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:

Five is not equal to four
The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld
The tsetse fly is not native to North America."

www.graveyardofthegods.net...

"I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can."

www.infidels.org...

"science can prove a negative in more than one way."

www.whale.to...



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Leftbehind's point is valid, you can't prove a negative.

ignoring it won't make it go away.


You're one to talk about ignoring things to make them go away, Howard.


But I digress.....

What does the challenge have to do with proving a negative?

Absolutely nothing.

To the contrary, the challenge is for you guys to simply prove your theory is correct, by reproducing it. The challenge is not to disprove demolition. This is kind of a no-brainer, but somehow it doesn't surprise me that the two of you would be so oblivious to it.

Well, except for you, Howard. I'm not surprised you would jump on this opportunity to try to discredit this post. After all, I'm convinced that this sort of thing must be your sick profession, and you haven't been doing a very good job recently anyway. But LeftBehind apparently just doesn't understand the post. He was ranting anyway, so..




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Leftbehind's point is valid, you can't prove a negative.

ignoring it won't make it go away.


Boy, you've sure got some nerve, kiddo. Your entire WTC Challenge thread is based on asking people to prove a negative. Your thread's premise is this:

NIST says fires and plane impacts were the sole cause of never-before-witnessed global collapses of three steel and concrete buildings. Prove that this is NOT true.

This thread, however, is asking you to prove a positive: Prove that progressive collapse of a structure is possible with the conditions listed via simulation, model, or real world reproduction.

I'm sorry, but the fact that you fail to understand what "proving a negative" means does not change anything. If you can't reproduce the collapses, then just slink back to your WTC Challenge thread and leave us adults to our discussion. K, thx, bye.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
It seems that most of you are missing what I meant by proving a negetative.

This challenge is posted in such a way to make it extremely difficult to accomplish without a team of researchers and a supercomputer.

The premise of the challenge is that the towers collapsed because of controlled demolition. They are saying to prove them wrong by proving something else.

That is the flaw with proving a negative.

They assume that if anyone can't meet their challenge, then their argument is right.

What they should be trying to do is prove their own hypothesis, not validate it by disproving something else.

That is proving a negative folks.

And it accomplishes nothing.

It's curious that my desire for proof is seen as ranting.

This challenge dares people to build things out of pancakes or toothpicks that can withstand 100mph wind. Seems pretty rantish to me.

To give those of you who don't understand structural engineering an idea of the complexity of this challenge here is the website of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

www.ce.berkeley.edu...

He is currently building a computer simulation to show what happened on 9-11.

He has been working on it for four years, and he's still not done.

Here is his WTC page.

www.ce.berkeley.edu...

He expected to finish in 2002, but he's still working on it.

Not quite as simple as you people seem to think.

In the sake of finding some common ground I propose a deal.

I will admit that it is very possible that the Bush administration let 9-11 happen,

if you admit that it is possible that the collapse of the towers was due to planes crashing into them, and not controlled demolition.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
They assume that if anyone can't meet their challenge, then their argument is right.


Show me where this is implied anywhere. I can understand the underlying idea that no one will be able to recreate the collapses, but nowhere is it stated or even implied that if you can't do it, then you are unconditionally wrong. Nowhere in the challenge is this alluded to.

"They" didn't assume this was the case; You did.



It's curious that my desire for proof is seen as ranting.


Your "desire for proof" has no place in this thread, because this thread is for you guys to offer us proof that your theory is the one that's right.


This challenge dares people to build things out of pancakes or toothpicks that can withstand 100mph wind. Seems pretty rantish to me.


Wtf?


Dude, look up the word "rant" in a freaking dictionary. You use it in the most totally asinine ways, I swear.

That part of the challenge, as I have already explained, wasn't seriously intended anyway. The author was expressing that he really didn't care what you used. Nowhere does he say "it must be pancakes!" or any stupid # like that.



To give those of you who don't understand structural engineering an idea of the complexity of this challenge here is the website of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

www.ce.berkeley.edu...

He is currently building a computer simulation to show what happened on 9-11.

He has been working on it for four years, and he's still not done.

Here is his WTC page.

www.ce.berkeley.edu...

He expected to finish in 2002, but he's still working on it.

Not quite as simple as you people seem to think.


Does he state anywhere that he's trying to figure out whether conspiracy theories are true or not?

Or is he just trying to research progressive collapse?

Because if he's been trying to simulate the thing for four years, and hasn't got it to work yet, I say he might as well stop trying, because he isn't going to get what he saw on his TV on 9/11. The gravity theory is bull#.


In the sake of finding some common ground I propose a deal.

I will admit that it is very possible that the Bush administration let 9-11 happen,

if you admit that it is possible that the collapse of the towers was due to planes crashing into them, and not controlled demolition.


I dunno, man. I mean, honestly, the way I see it, there's about as much of a possibility of that collapse being natural as there is of life being on the Sun.

I mean, I was about to say that I was open to the possibility if I was shown compelling evidence for it, and not just theories that don't account for half of the collapse anyway, but at that moment I remembered how freakishly clean and fast-paced they were, and the squibs for God's sake, and I couldn't bring myself to slight all of that in favor of some compromise of admitting the possibility of an error. I just can't see it happening any way other than demolition.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The premise of the challenge is that the towers collapsed because of controlled demolition. They are saying to prove them wrong by proving something else.


Rubbish. If you actually bothered to click the link, you'd see there is no mention of the cause of the collapses at all, simply a challenge to reproduce the "progressive collapse" theory which has been put forward by the U.S. government and only seems to have retroactively appear in structural engineering jargon after the events of 9-11.


They assume that if anyone can't meet their challenge, then their argument is right.

What they should be trying to do is prove their own hypothesis, not validate it by disproving something else.

That is proving a negative folks.


Wrong. You are projecting your own assumptions onto the challenge. You clearly don't understand what proving a negative means. A theory has been put forth to explain the collapses. The challenge is asking for the effects of that theory to be reproduced, thereby proving a positive.


In the sake of finding some common ground I propose a deal.

I will admit that it is very possible that the Bush administration let 9-11 happen,

if you admit that it is possible that the collapse of the towers was due to planes crashing into them, and not controlled demolition.


How can you make "a deal" with the truth?
Something is either true or it isn't. How's this for a deal? If you admit that it's possible the moon is made of cheese, I'll admit that it's possible Bush has a brain..



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
In the sake of finding some common ground I propose a deal.
I will admit that it is very possible that the Bush administration let 9-11 happen,
if you admit that it is possible that the collapse of the towers was due to planes crashing into them, and not controlled demolition.


LOL you either believe that Bush and co let it happen or you don't.

You either believe it was a controlled demo or you don't.

(Unless yo be sitin on da fence....time to get off)

So you will admit to believing that Bush & co did this, if we admit it was planes not demolitions that bought the towers down?

Hmmmm do I have to explain how stupid that idea is?

I will admit to only what I "believe" in, what I feel from the evidence is right. I'm not going to compromise my belief to make you happy. This is not a competition to see who wins the argument. Maybe that's how you see it. This is a discussion which hopefully will educate some people. Because every time you and Howweird post your rants and rebuttals you just strengthen our argument.

If you are only willing to admit to your true beliefs if we say what you want to hear, then I'm afraid you are deluding yourself my friend. And anything you post here on ATS is now discredited because we know now what you are typing is not what you truly believe.

Why don't you just admit what you believe without having to "make a deal".
This is not a car dealership.

Most of us here are being very open and truthful in what we feel, with no fear of reprisals. Why hold back?

[edit on 26/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Did you guys even read that site?

The whole thing is about advancing the theory that it was a controlled demolition. It's obvious that they make the challenge expecting it not to be met, so they can bask in their rightousness.


It's nice to see that you don't read my links, or your own.

I see that none of you are interested in debate or common ground.

Are you actually interested in anyone attempting the challenge, or are you only interested in validating your own ideas?

rant: 1.Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2.A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence.


That's pretty funny how you assume I've never looked it up when you obviously haven't.

Show me anywhere in my posts where I was violent or incited violence.
Smooth move. Or should I say asinine ...


The pancake and toothpick part isn't meant to be taken seriously, I understand that. By extrapolating on that, I can see that none of the challenge is meant to be taken seriously.

If you had bothered to look into the proffesor's research you would see that he is trying to recreate the event exactly. You show your ignorance by not understanding how much that would take.

You seem to think it's so easy that we should all just do it.

If it's so easy, show the same model that displays controlled demolition.

C'mon it's easy!!

Your lack of a model proves my theory.

See how stupid that sounds.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
You're forgetting that we're not asking for an exact replica, just show us how a tower with damage to the top progressively collapses in symmetrical way without tilting.

If you can do that, challenge met, not so hard now is it ?
By telling us over and over how hard it is you're actually proving our point.

All the time most of you have been yelling "this is the way towers collapse because of gravity", well show us, that's all we ask.

I'll keep on testing even if nobody else wants to take it on.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Another definition of rant:


rant

verb

To speak in a loud, pompous, or prolonged manner: declaim, harangue, mouth, perorate, rave. See words.

noun

Pretentious, pompous speech or writing


The way I was using it, I meant more along the lines of "pompous," which you can also look up if you want. Basically I mean all you're doing is talking. Talking, and no real meat to your arguments when you have any at all.

That's why I'm really losing motivation to respond to your posts. You're wasting my time.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
All the time most of you have been yelling "this is the way towers collapse because of gravity", well show us, that's all we ask.


In fact I would be happy if they could show us anything that collapses down on it self with very little resistance, crushing, pulverizing and destroying everything in its downward path... By gravity alone.

[edit on 27/8/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   

I am aware that no one in the industry has experience with buildings this big. However, I have demolished several structures over , say 200 Ft., by tilting them a few degrees and removing the bottom 25 feet or so. They accelerate that distance under the influence of gravity...and they keep right on going.. Most crush themselves with no apparent slow-down.

Yes, I often prepare some upper levels of some structures. but it looks to me like the WTC buildings went down on their own ........no advance prep ...no explosives,...none of that


Removed the company information and name of the individual so he doesnt get any repercussions from me posting this.. if you want the info, I'll gladly U2U it to you..

Anyhow, I'm gonna shoot this guy an email back.. any questions you want me to ask?

[edit on 8/27/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
Very good bsbray, you have just found the definition of every post you've made on this thread. Talk about calling the kettle black.


Very nice Quiet Soul.

It's good to hear what an expert thinks on this subject.


My whole problem with most of what I've heard on this subject is that it's ameuter's saying that they believe without out a doubt that it was demolition. Much like the moon-hoaxers, they would do well to learn the science behind it.

Keep in mind that for the controlled demolition theory to work they need enormous amounts of preperation.

science.howstuffworks.com...




How can they set up something like that in complete secrecy on every floor?



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Well I know from research that not every demolition is done in that way. The picture you posted below is actually a new method and used for demolishing reinforced concrete supports.. not steel

It's funny that picture came up.. because about 2 years ago I posted the same picture with a nifty .gif that came with it showing what exactly those sheets do..

Anyhow, I sent a reply back to this man.. I even asked him to come here and comment if he wanted.. we shall see.


Edit add: sources

Concrete vs. Steel:

DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'?

Concrete columns are generally easier to destroy, and usually require a small amount of conventional dynamite packed into specially drilled holes. Steel beams, however, require a very high-velocity explosive to perform a 'cutting' action through the steel. A specialized explosive called RDX, made famous by NASA’s space program, is used to perform this task. This copper-encased explosive is physically attached to the beam, and upon detonation 'slices' at an incredible 27,000 feet per second. A small amount of conventional dynamite is also attached to the beam to 'kick' it out of place so the structure will fall uniformly, in a direction predesignated by the blaster.

More here: www.implosionworld.com...

Found the nifty .gif too:



[edit on 8/27/2005 by QuietSoul]







 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join