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.

 

"Progressive collapse" challenge: 4+ years and still no takers

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Waisting your time amigo. Best to put that troll on "ignore"




posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The funniest part of the 911 debunkers is that the smaller closer
bldgs that had tons of material pound the hell out of them did not
fall but Bldg 7 did.

Why did the smaller bldgs, built to weaker standards, that took
FAR more damage not fall ????

They have presented all kinds of sham excuses, and numerous bldgs
around the world have burned for DAYS and never fell.

The debunkers are just like the NIST idiot in the video in my signature.

Watch 9/11 press for truth on google video and you will realize
that the official story is full of holes and the ppl in the 911 commission
refused to answer over 30% of the questions.

It is a total friggin sham job.

They either have drank the koolaid or are benefiting from the lie,
and may end up in trials as accomplices once we get real trials
for the crimes of 911.




[edit on 14-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Not to be rude to the OP, that's a good test, but really the only test you need to do is throw some construction steel in a hydrocarbon/jet fuel fire and see if it loses enough strength to collapse on itself. If you can't get it to weaken enough then you can safely say it didn't happen on 9-11.

It's a very easy test to do.

I already know what the outcome suggests, do any of you debunkers really know first hand? I know most of you just believe what you read if it helps your argument. Real research requires you getting your hands dirty once in awhile, not blabbing away everyday on the net.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Try it!!

Sounds like a great idea....



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Our tax money already went towards an investigation, that never did anything like this for the global collapses. Not a lot of money; not as much money as the Lewinski scandal, or the TWA 800 incident, but nonetheless some of our money. The government took it upon itself to do the investigation, you apparently have no problems with its investigation, but when they fail to answer so many questions they leave a lot of citizens feeling as though they didn't get their money's worth or else not enough money/other resources for a sufficient investigation in the first place.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Its obvious your more worried about winning your little test than actually trying to learn something about what you turn up in the process.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Were you trying to teach me something?

I'm only "worried" that you can't have a "progressive" or "pancake" collapse while most of the mass is being sent out sideways.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Dont you think its significant that the only way to produce that kind of a collapse seems to be in a structure with no lateral strength?

Obviously the buildings could not have stood to that day with no lateral strength but there were no 100 mph winds at the time the planes hit. So something had to have happened to the bolts maybe? On that day alone.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm only "worried" that you can't have a "progressive" or "pancake" collapse while most of the mass is being sent out sideways.


Sure you can.

Once the mass necessary to strip floors, from there on down, mass accumulation can equal mass loss, and the collapse will continue.

It doesn't require an ever-increasing mass since the floor connections were identical, except for the mechanical floors.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


I haven't concluded that the ONLY explanation is that the towers had no lateral strength. Why have you?


reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Blue daffodils run to the sky on Thursdays in Japan.

Just because you say something doesn't mean it really makes any sense. Show me a model that proves your words. Ie read the OP.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Whatever the cause of the phenomenon the falling cards is the only example after 4 years that passed all your original requirements thus resembling the WTC Towers collapse in a model. So whatever makes the cards fall that way probably has to do with how the towers collapsed. Unless you can find another model that behaves in a similar fashion.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Not to be rude to the OP, that's a good test, but really the only test you need to do is throw some construction steel in a hydrocarbon/jet fuel fire and see if it loses enough strength to collapse on itself. If you can't get it to weaken enough then you can safely say it didn't happen on 9-11.

It's a very easy test to do.

I already know what the outcome suggests, do any of you debunkers really know first hand? I know most of you just believe what you read if it helps your argument. Real research requires you getting your hands dirty once in awhile, not blabbing away everyday on the net.


How about this:





Lets get the clip board:

Hydrocarbon fire - check
Steel I-beams - check
Steel failure - check



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Alright then, we have our first theory based on a model that can pass all the challenges except the last one (or any that has lateral force) that the challenge can't be met because not even the WTC could have met the last requirement, because it was literally equivalent to a house of cards. Thank you VitalOverdose.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Just because you say something doesn't mean it really makes any sense.


And neither does your statement that i quoted.

But your evasion is noted.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Alright then, we have our first theory based on a model that can pass all the challenges except the last one (or any that has lateral force) that the challenge can't be met because not even the WTC could have met the last requirement, because it was literally equivalent to a house of cards. Thank you VitalOverdose.


Like i said before your to caught up in your little challenge to notice anything of value. No offense but there is no point this debate other than to massage your ego. Im off to find something interesting to discuss. Have fun



[edit on 15-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

But your evasion is noted.


If you think that was an evasion then let me be more clear: put up or shut up.

You say it would be possible, then show me a model that demonstrates it, don't just give some layman rendering of what a physicist would have to calculate. So far we have a literal house of cards that would topple if someone were to blow on it, which didn't actually satisfy the whole challenge, but fortunately it came with a clever (though vague in its implications) excuse just provided by VitalOverdose.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Nothing melted on that bridge except the rubber shock mounts.
The steel was re-used...


The portion of the East Bay freeway charred in an explosion three days ago will likely be repaired rather than demolished and replaced, significantly shortening the time the heavily used road remains closed, state transit officials said Tuesday...“It doesn’t look right now like we’re going to have to replace it,” Caltrans spokesman Bob Haus said. “We might have to do some straightening, but it looks as if the actual structure is OK despite the scorching.”


www.examiner.com...

The steel was only 'charred', not melted.

Sorry that is just another debunker myth that you obviously haven't checked for yourself. You debunkers don't seem to do any actual research just parrot what you read on 9-11myths, or incorrect sensational press reports...


Steel does NOT melt in a open air fire, how many times does this have to be repeated until you guys actually check it for yourself?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


What a cop out, you just don't want to rise to the challenge because deep down you know it can't be done...Nothing but excuses to avoid it.

None of you debunkers want to put your hypotheses to any real scientific testing, you all avoid anything of that nature. Are you really not that confident in your opinions?



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wally Hope
 


Did you uh even see the steel beams? Did you see the deformation of them? It was so bad, it caused the section to collapse.

Ah I see you ignored the obvious, ie the collapsed section of the overpass, and instead took the portion that was charred and took that and used it to bolster your argument. Well here is another report:

www.signonsandiego.com...


OAKLAND – A gasoline tanker crashed and burst into flames near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge on Sunday, creating such intense heat that a heavily trafficked stretch of highway melted and collapsed.


And here is the corresponding picture:


Now technically speaking, the steel beams themselves did not melt into liquid, but the connections did, but the beams were severely deformed. didnt you notice how the beams were sagging prior to collapse in the last video? Why was that happening?

One more report:
www.foxnews.com...


Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.


Last one:
cbs5.com...


Investigators found that the steel girders holding up the lower ramp had warped but remained structurally sound and could be straightened. Portions of the roadway will be lifted and put back into place, but longer-term strengthening of support pillars might need to continue after it is re-opened to the public.

Engineers said test results assessing damage to the lower ramp's concrete deck also determined it would not have to be rebuilt from scratch.

The overpass connecting eastbound Interstate 80 to eastbound Interstate 580 was destroyed by the tanker explosion, however, and it will have to be replaced.

Officials had called finding the steel and fabricating the custom-made beams needed to support the ramp the biggest obstacle to completing repairs on the collapsed overpass. But a Northern California firm told CBS 5 that it had enough steel in its inventory to do the needed repair work.



Now you see, the lower section was intact and was the one that was scorched. The top section that COLLAPSED from fire alone needed to be replaced completely.

You see, this is called research. Another important part about research, you have to UNDERSTAND what you are reading and researching.

Now I have just pointed out how you and many other truthers dont really do research or read deeper into a subject. This was a prime example. Why? because with just a few clicks and searches, and I have corrected your false claim, thereby solidifying my first argument. Steel did fail from fire alone. Not just steel but the connections as well. What you did was try and twist a smaller article into meaning something it wasnt.

To recap: The top portion of the over pass collapsed completely thanks to a gasoline truck fire. It needed to be replaced with new steel. The lower section on which the truck was on and burning was the charred section, which was salvageable and not needed to be replaced. Its girders were slightly warped but did not collapse. There we go.

EDIT to add some more info

[edit on 8/15/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You say it would be possible, then show me a model that demonstrates it, don't just give some layman rendering of what a physicist would have to calculate.


Why don't you?

Your statement came first - something like a progressive collapse can't occur if a majority of the mass is being ejected.

So why aren't you required to be the first one to produce this model, since you are the one to make the claim?

Do it, or you can put up or shut up yourself, kid.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join