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.

 

Resources for the debunker

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I realize that many debunkers have a hard time finding proper material to debate "truthers" with. I've scoured these here internets in search of cold hard facts, facts which are in scientific journals or are done by credible engineers and scientists. These resources should obviously help anyone who has any doubt in their mind about the official story, and should help educate those who believe that 9/11 was a controlled demolition/nuclear bomb/other crazy theories. Without further due, here are the links which will help you in your quest for the truth.

www.luxinzheng.net...
"Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact", Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22.

ojps.aip.org...
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

search.epnet.com...
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

www.hera.org.nz...
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

search.epnet.com...
"Construction and Collapse Factors", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

search.epnet.com...
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

search.epnet.com...
"Dissecting the Collapses", Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

proquest.umi.com... P%2bbOgPiGn%2bvjLp%2fmr%2fJ03qNYYsrG%2faRCmg--
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation", JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

webcat.library.ubc.ca...:%20Data%20C ollection,%20Preliminary%20Observations,%20and%20Recomm&Search_Code=TALL
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.

ojps.aip.org...
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center", The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

weblinks2.epnet.com... essionmgr2+dbs+aph+CD40&_us=dstb+ES+ri+KAAACB1D00009012+fcl+Aut+sm+ES+sl+%2D1+or+Date+F0D7&_uh=btn+N+6C9C&_uso=st%5B0+%2DJN++%22Fire++Engineering%22++ and++DT++20021001+tg%5B0+%2D+db%5B0+%2Daph+op%5B0+%2D+hd+False+0217&fn=11&rn=15
"Collapse Lessons", Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

proquest.umi.com... 2bFfC%2fAQoYYSnaH0gr3QcVARSJXT1dWZrzzA--
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering", JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

ojps.aip.org...
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations", Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Further resources...

ojps.aip.org...
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

www.nist.gov...
"Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center", National Instititue of Standards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

www.agiweb.org...
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site", Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).

www.pbs.org...
Why the Towers Fell, A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

proquest.umi.com... 2fC%2fAQoYYSnaH0gr3QcVARQ0ZXr67E7TTA--
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report", ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

search.epnet.com...
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing", ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering

search.epnet.com...
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives", ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. The Towers Lost and Beyond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Here are some more from actual engineers...
www.icivilengineer.com...
www.architectureweek.com...


And, here are the basic definitive websites for debunking all of this conspiracy nonsense (most focus on Loose Change, as it's the big one)...
enr.construction.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
www.sciam.com...
wtc.nist.gov...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.democracynow.org.../09/11/1345203
www.phoenixnewtimes.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.salon.com...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.loosechangeguide.com...
www.cs.purdue.edu...
www.usatoday.com...

Or, if these don't convince you, how about the words from the actual creators of Loose Change?
video.google.com...
Dylan Avery: "We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That's the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…."

smithmag.net...
Korey Rowe: "We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves."



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   
How did the authors of most of the above articles come by their information?


Figured I'd post this here too, but this is what all of those early "experts" were saying:


Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."


911research.wtc7.net...

Just a reminder that, according to the "official" reports by this point, the fires didn't melt anything, and weakening support columns wasn't shown to be a valid mechanism, either. Their theory focuses on the trusses deflecting vertically.


SE Chris Wise told the BBC this, reported Sept. 13:


There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other.


Which is of course another exaggeration that we now know not at all to have been the cause of the collapse.


Another SE:


On September 17, the BBC quoted another expert, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton, on the subject of melted steel.
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."


"Twin Towers' Steel Under Scrutiny" news.bbc.co.uk...


Another one:


Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.


911research.wtc7.net...


Hopefully I won't have to explain to anybody that the supports didn't melt, that, according to the official story, NO steel melted, and the columns weren't even heated to sufficiently weaken, but the trusses gave way in some vague way that somehow jerked out the adjacent columns. That's the official story now, and it took a few years to develop.

All the experts on parade from yesteryear were just shown to be talking out of their asses in assuming that the fires themselves failed the support columns in any way. In fact, I bet anyone looking into half of these articles/papers would start to see that there's no consistent consensus yet as to what exactly was the exact failure mechanism that brought them down even among people on the "official" side, and that most of them somehow conflict with NIST's report.

Maybe someone would like to even get us started on this thread, digging out the articles above and trying to match them with either NIST or FEMA's actual physical investigations, or even matching them to each other, and seeing how consistent the thought processes here are.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
For all those reading, his post is very disgenious. His quotes don't come from any of my resources, he's just trying to make my links look like they're from some silly news article on BBC when in fact these are all scientific papers.

Nice try though.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Well, can you show me one of your articles that is consistent with NIST's hypothesis, or that are based upon examination of actual video and/or physical evidence?


Take your first link. It was a mathematical model done in 2002 that represents basically a bunch of plates impacting each other with a domino-like effect. Fits pancake theory, but NIST contradicted it, and it doesn't explain actual column failures or even give any realistic results on how long the collapses should have therefore taken. They also assume all of the mass stays within the footprints, apparently, which also never happened and gives them a lot more mass to play with than was actually available.

So I'm asking for something consistent with NIST's report or at least something that backs up what it says with actual scientific references of some sort.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
For all those reading, his post is very disgenious. His quotes don't come from any of my resources, he's just trying to make my links look like they're from some silly news article on BBC when in fact these are all scientific papers.

Nice try though.


LOL you just bad-mouthed one of your "authoritative" links. If you don't have any confidence in them why should we?

Nice try though.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
ever wonder why it is hard to find 'good' debunking resources?
it's sure not hard for conspiracy researchers. in fact, it is becoming increasingly easy to see the lie of the shadow elite. there are all kinds of great movies coming out, books, discussion groups, activist groups, and, best of all, new research by independent experts.

i like to look at the chinese computer sim as a good example of debunkers debunking themselves. notice in their model, they had to remove 30 to 50% of support to get the towers to collapse at all. notice that, in their model of these 'killed' areas, there is no core in one tower, and no corner on the other.
someone from physorg contacted those two engineers and asked how long their collapse took. one minute, and thirty seconds was the answer. not 12.5 seconds.
notice in their model, 95% of the debris is not exploding outside of the footprint.
notice how their model, the BEST one i've seen, is not showing what actually happened.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
ever wonder why it is hard to find 'good' debunking resources?
it's sure not hard for conspiracy researchers. in fact, it is becoming increasingly easy to see the lie of the shadow elite. there are all kinds of great movies coming out, books, discussion groups, activist groups, and, best of all, new research by independent experts.

i like to look at the chinese computer sim as a good example of debunkers debunking themselves. notice in their model, they had to remove 30 to 50% of support to get the towers to collapse at all. notice that, in their model of these 'killed' areas, there is no core in one tower, and no corner on the other.
someone from physorg contacted those two engineers and asked how long their collapse took. one minute, and thirty seconds was the answer. not 12.5 seconds.
notice in their model, 95% of the debris is not exploding outside of the footprint.
notice how their model, the BEST one i've seen, is not showing what actually happened.

Stopped reading at shadow elite, sorry dude not into the crazy stuff.

Also, can someone post any scientific articles that prove controlled demolition? I'd be curious to read them.

Of course, I know they probably don't exist, but I'd like to see if anyone can find one.

In regards to the NIST report, can someone link that to me, or at least give me a summary of it, I haven't read it in a while now.

edit: sigh I guess I should refute your second part, but no more crazy JEWS SHADOW ELITE NWO stuff from now on ok?

The article states that the 30% loss of support is only in the area where the plane crashed, because... a plane crashed there. Furthermore, the reason one of the corners of the building(which you can obviously see happened on any film) was weakened was because, once again, a plane crashed there. The plane that hit there was closer to the corner then the other building. Are you going by the assumption that these planes did no damage whatsoever and that this was all explosives planted by the grey aliens/JEWS/shadow elite in several hours without anyone being suspicious or calling the cops or anything of that sort? Also, there diagrams are pretty simplistic to give you an idea of how they looked like when the fell minus all the debris. I don't think they're going to include all the smoke and stuff.

If you could provide a source for your comments on how long the building took to collapse, I'll be happy to refute that as well.

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]

[edit on 4-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I am sorry but you must have missed the last 4-5 years in the 911 conspiracy.
Everything you just posted was not debunked but debundebundebunked.
If you can provide us with a serious simulation of how the tower felt please feel free to do so. While you are at it you might as well tell us how the material was ejected and how the puffs where seen 40 story below the collapsing point. Etc... etc... etc... etc...
Honestly there are better debunkers in here than the so called experts that wrote those silly articles you just posted. You see you don't need to debunk anything just provide us with some real evidence and we will elect you as our (at least mine) personal hero.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
I am sorry but you must have missed the last 4-5 years in the 911 conspiracy.
Everything you just posted was not debunked but debundebundebunked.
If you can provide us with a serious simulation of how the tower felt please feel free to do so. While you are at it you might as well tell us how the material was ejected and how the puffs where seen 40 story below the collapsing point. Etc... etc... etc... etc...
Honestly there are better debunkers in here than the so called experts that wrote those silly articles you just posted. You see you don't need to debunk anything just provide us with some real evidence and we will elect you as our (at least mine) personal hero.

What do you mean by debunked? I have a feeling you're talking about semantics.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I think he was referring to the fact that most of the things you've posted are outdated and aren't really accepted on either "side" of the issue anymore. All the structural engineers saying the steel columns must have melted, for example, just went to show how much SEs know about the effects of office fires on steel structures. Then you had pancake theories, a "zipper" theory, more column failure theories, and a guy named Frank Greening even put out a paper suggesting that thermite naturally came about in the towers between the aluminum airliner bodies and rust from the steel columns.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
How did the authors of most of the above articles come by their information?


Figured I'd post this here too, but this is what all of those early "experts" were saying:


speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."


911research.wtc7.net...


I think there are some keys to this. This was quite an early speculation from this man. How do I know? He is guessing there was close to 91,000 litres of jet fuel which comes out to little over 24,000 gallons of jet fuel. the NIST report estimated at around 11K. Also the word "speculates" is key. This man was specualtion. It was not an opinion based on any evidence of that time. Why don't you write him and ask him what his opinion is now? Oh...wait....Im sure he has been tainted by the NWO.

The rest of your post dealt with the speculations of people early on in the investigation with nothing but videso evidence to back them up.











[edit on 4-8-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The rest of your post dealt with the speculations of people early on in the investigation with nothing but videso evidence to back them up.


What do you think most of the links in the first two posts are?

These are the exact same people you guys are referencing. You pretty much just shot down your own "side".



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
regarding the 'shadow elite'.
i never mentioned 'jew', or 'nwo'.

seeing as the three towers were destroyed with high energy devices, it seems more likely than not that a horde of insiders were involved. only huge money, power, and connections can pull of something so huge.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
collapse simulation, lu jiang

there are your collapse times, wtc1 = 90 seconds, and wtc2 = 110 seconds.

notice the new site i'm referencing. good luck to these guys!



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
One resource you didn't mention was the article by internationally known physicist, Richard Muller. Like many who are familiar with civil engineering and building, he predicted the collapse as the event was happening. As I understand it, he tried to alert officials to the danger :
muller.lbl.gov...(old)/chapters2003/Appendix-Sept.11.htm



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Prescott bush funds hitler, hitlwe takes over europe, the states nuke 2 civilian cities, killing nothing but women and children and men going to work, world bank lends money to all countries destroyed by the american financed nazi war machine and sets up the u.n to police those war torn countries, this was all used as a pretext to establish the illegal state of Israel to use as a military strong hold for future wars and a tax shelter for world criminals. Long story short, 9/11 was one page in a volume.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Like many who are familiar with civil engineering and building, he predicted the collapse as the event was happening.


Many prominent structural engineers, "gurus" according to sources, professors at institutions like MIT, also said right after the collapses that the steel columns must have been melted by the fire.

I know what civil engineering is about. Can you explain how it relates to a dynamic system, where statics are out the window and the initiation has just as much to do with metallurgy?

He's also not one of "many". He's one of the very few I've heard of, imagining they could collapse before they did. And your link is broken.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
muller.lbl.gov...(old)/chapters2003/Appendix-Sept.11.htm

To get this to work you gotta copy the actual linked part and then copy paste the text of it on to the end.

edit: damn I guess you can't edit after like 10 minutes, can a mod add the above link?

[edit on 5-8-2007 by ccaihc]

[edit on 5-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I would like to further add the following links:

www.911myths.com...
-There’s a video available online that shows about four seconds of the collapse of WTC2, shot from a point near Trinity Church. It includes two loud explosion-type sounds which, it’s been suggested, are evidence of controlled demolition. But can the clip convince experienced audio professional Mark De Martini? Follow the above link to find out.

www.911myths.com...
-Dr Greening sent us an interesting study on the WTC collapse, covering such issues as how and why it began, the collapse time, momentum transfer theory, the energy involved in the impacts and the collapse itself (including that required to crush concrete), and more.

www.911myths.com...
-This companion to the WTC Report addresses other issues, including Jim Hoffmans claim that there was insufficient evidence from a gravity-driven collapse to pulverise concrete and create and expand the observed dust clouds.

www.911myths.com...
-Another Greening article suggests that perhaps a thermite reaction really did play a part in the collapse of the WTC... Though not for the reasons commonly assumed. (PDF file, updated 8th April 2006 with new observations on the molten metal pouring from 80th floor of WTC2).

These are straight from 911myths.com but I sincerely doubt that any of you guys are actually reading that website, so I'm linking them here.

Hey look further scientific proof from respected/credited engineers and others that support the official story or variations there of.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join