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.

 

"Frontline" Equivalent in Canada Examines the "Unofficial Story" of 9/11

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 



I'm already well familiar with both the Cardington tests and the Windsor Tower fire. Neither of those provide evidence that the Twin Towers totally collapsed from fires and impacts alone. I guess you think this is all new to me and I've never seen it before, yet you don't understand it well enough yourself to be more specific as to how these things are proof of anything.

This is really very hard for you, isn't it? Seriously, I am not asking for an assload of irrelevant links, I am asking for one single instance of definitive proof that it was fire and impacts alone. Show the conclusion, and show the evidence that supports it. Easy. Why can't you do that?




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I'm not asking you to hold my hand. I'm asking you to put up, or shut up. You either know what these papers say and what they prove, or you don't. Don't be a hypocrite. Read your freaking papers yourself and show me one instance of a definitive proof that it was fires and planes alone.


I know what these papers say. I've read most of them (not all since many of what they claim mirrors NISTS conclusions).

However, we can't have a discussion on what they say if YOU can't be bothered to read them and critically analyze them.

Its very easy. Pick one of the papers. read it over. come back and post your questions about that paper.

Very simple way to have a discussion.


If you can't be bothered to read them, then I can't help you. You want to discuss the papers, or ask for evidence, but you are unwilling to even read the papers that address what you are looking for.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
However, we can't have a discussion on what they say if YOU can't be bothered to read them and critically analyze them.


Why are you waiting for me to pick the paper apart? What exactly is stopping you from posting a simple conclusion, and then showing how any given paper supported it?


Its very easy. Pick one of the papers. read it over. come back and post your questions about that paper.


Right. So you actually have no idea what any of the papers say, don't know what they prove or how they prove it, yet you're somehow going to answer questions about them for me. Well here's a freaking question: what does even ONE of them prove, and HOW?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I'm already well familiar with both the Cardington tests and the Windsor Tower fire. Neither of those provide evidence that the Twin Towers totally collapsed from fires and impacts alone.



why do you keep using "from fires and damages' alone. That seems to be where you are very confused about what happened.

It wasn't fires and and damages alone. It was many factors that caused the building to collapse.

It was fires, it was damage caused by the impacts. it was either the disloging of fire protection from the trusses (as NIST suggests) or the inadequate application of the protection that left hteh steel exposed to the fires (as others have sugested). It was the effect of the fires that caused the steel to loose its strength.
It was gravity acting on the building that pulled the building down when the STEEL could no longer handle the WEIGHT of the buliding.



I guess you think this is all new to me and I've never seen it before, yet you don't understand it well enough yourself to be more specific as to how these things are proof of anything.


If you have read the papers, then you wouldn't be asking for evidence. There are numerous reports on why steel needs to be protected from fire. the Cardington Test shows what can happen. The WTC towers showed WHAT happened.




This is really very hard for you, isn't it? Seriously, I am not asking for an assload of irrelevant links, I am asking for one single instance of definitive proof that it was fire and impacts alone. Show the conclusion, and show the evidence that supports it. Easy. Why can't you do that?



What you are asking for are the combination of MANY factors that lead the collapses, the DAMAGES from the impacts and FIRES are just two of them.

Read the papers to understand the physics behind the Towers collapses. Read the papers to understand why Fire protection is needed on construction grade steel.



Why do you ignore that Steel can lose its strength in fires? if you can come to terms with this simple fact, then you will understand fires were partially responsible for the collapses



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by RipCurl
However, we can't have a discussion on what they say if YOU can't be bothered to read them and critically analyze them.


Why are you waiting for me to pick the paper apart? What exactly is stopping you from posting a simple conclusion, and then showing how any given paper supported it?


you're stalling and dodging is noted.

In the time you replied, you could have picked one and skimmed it over quickly to find the passages that you have questions about.

But now, you rather have others do your homework for you.

I will not discuss the papers until YOU show at least an inch of effort that you are willing to do SOME research into what you are looking for.


Right. So you actually have no idea what any of the papers say, don't know what they prove or how they prove it, yet you're somehow going to answer questions about them for me. Well here's a freaking question: what does even ONE of them prove, and HOW?


READ the papers. Until you do, you are only showing that you are not interested in educating yourself.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
why do you keep using "from fires and damages' alone. That seems to be where you are very confused about what happened.

It wasn't fires and and damages alone. It was many factors that caused the building to collapse.


Yeah, ok, well show that to me in a paper and show me how they proved it. Take your pick.



If you have read the papers, then you wouldn't be asking for evidence. There are numerous reports on why steel needs to be protected from fire. the Cardington Test shows what can happen. The WTC towers showed WHAT happened.


The Cardington tests only showed that deformations occur in structures, specifically expansion and contraction of beams. They didn't prove that the WTC Towers came down from fire and impacts (and whatever else you say).

It's simple facts like that, that prevent you from posting the proof I'm asking for. Because you don't actually have it. You're just a lot of talk.


Read the papers to understand the physics behind the Towers collapses. Read the papers to understand why Fire protection is needed on construction grade steel.


Why don't we talk about how NIST "proved" all the fireproofing was dislodged? That's a trick question anyway, because NIST never even claimed themselves that they had proved such a thing.
They shot at spray-on fireproofing with a shot gun and noted how much came off (not even all of the test samples). Seriously. Is that the kind of "proof" you're talking about?



Why do you ignore that Steel can lose its strength in fires?


Am I ignoring that now? You're ignorant if you think NIST is saying the towers collapsed because of strength loss due to heating.


Go back and look at their specific hypothesis again. They have an FAQ on their website for quick reference, just Google it.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
you're stalling and dodging is noted.


Shouldn't that be what I say to you, consider YOU were the one posting all those papers that supposedly prove this or that, yet you can't show me how or where?

Most of the papers you posted are only a few pages long. Can you seriously not find the hypothesis and the supporting evidence in them? I guess I can't blame you if you're really trying, because I wasn't able to find it, either.



In the time you replied, you could have picked one and skimmed it over quickly to find the passages that you have questions about.


Same to you. Pick a paper, find the hypothesis, post the evidence. Done deal.


READ the papers. Until you do, you are only showing that you are not interested in educating yourself.


For the last time I ALREADY HAVE.

This is NOT NEW STUFF TO ME!


Since you are unable to show me what any of the papers prove or how they prove it, you must be submitting that you do not actually have any evidence to back up your claims. You are completely unable to produce it. Only a list of links to papers. Maybe I should link to a bunch of "truther" websites and pretend my job is done?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yeah, ok, well show that to me in a paper and show me how they proved it. Take your pick.


Yes take your pick. read the papers I've linked to. You will find your answers.




The Cardington tests only showed that deformations occur in structures, specifically expansion and contraction of beams. They didn't prove that the WTC Towers came down from fire and impacts (and whatever else you say).



Nice that you ignore that the test were done in 1998 and the fact the tests proves why the WTC towers were going to collapse. Deformations. Guess what happens when you have a steel truss DEFORM to the point that it doesn't perform what its supposed to do.


Im sorry if this is something you can't understand. Maybe you should visit your local college campus and talk to a physics professor to draw pictures for you, since words seem to confuse you.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Since you are unable to show me what any of the papers prove or how they prove it, you must be submitting that you do not actually have any evidence to back up your claims. You are completely unable to produce it. Only a list of links to papers. Maybe I should link to a bunch of "truther" websites and pretend my job is done?


nice false choice fallacy set up.
dodge, weave, ignore. that's all you've done so far.

The answers you want are in the papers. READ the NIST report. if you dont want to read all 10,000 pages, use the Ctrl+F on the pages. Here's a hint "Fire" is a term you can search on.

Read the papers. Pick one. I'll discuss it with you when YOU bother to read them

The ball is in your court.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by RipCurl]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Yes take your pick. read the papers I've linked to. You will find your answers.


Nope. Jesus Christ dude, I have read the freaking papers already. Give me one and I will SHOW you that it doesn't prove anything.





The Cardington tests only showed that deformations occur in structures, specifically expansion and contraction of beams. They didn't prove that the WTC Towers came down from fire and impacts (and whatever else you say).



Nice that you ignore that the test were done in 1998 and the fact the tests proves why the WTC towers were going to collapse. Deformations. Guess what happens when you have a steel truss DEFORM to the point that it doesn't perform what its supposed to do.


Except the Cardington test structures didn't collapse.


Not to mention the deformations hypothesized by NIST did something completely different than ANYTHING mentioned in the Cardington reports.

I apparently know more about these papers than you do. Go figure.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
The ball is in your court.


God forbid it be in YOUR court for a change, because you don't know what to do with it.

I'm not endorsing ANY reports. I am criticizing all of them. I don't have a case to make. I only have problems with the cases made thus far.

Thus I have no "court."

I am asking for evidence to support YOUR claims. You are totally unable to produce it. You're not just dodging, you are completely unable.



Here's a tip: Don't just try to shift the burden of proof when your case sucks and you know it. Because I don't have a specific case. YOU do.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Nope. Jesus Christ dude, I have read the freaking papers already. Give me one and I will SHOW you that it doesn't prove anything.



then post your question if you have read them. provide the paper and post your question. Very simple to do. Insead, all you've done is dodge and ignore.




Except the Cardington test structures didn't collapse.


OMG....seriously? that is what you hang your doubts on? You are more in need of help that I realized


Not to mention the deformations hypothesized by NIST did something completely different than ANYTHING mentioned in the Cardington reports.

I apparently know more about these papers than you do. Go figure.


Which proves you didn't understand what you are reading.

pick a paper. Talked to a physics professor yet? Why havent you?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


I originally asked for you to provide proof of your claims, that the Towers fell solely because planes hit them and started fires within them.

All I got instead was a bunch of rhetoric, links to papers without explanations of what they proved, and finally trying to shift a burden of proof onto me. Classic ignorance and total inability to support your case.



I'm done here. You've made it clear you have no specific evidence to present here. Just another troll.


[edit on 1-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by RipCurl
 


I originally asked for you to provide proof of your claims, that the Towers fell solely because planes hit them and started fires within them.


and i've repeatedly stated that they didn't. You are oversimplifying the events.

a tactic used by the 911 truth movement.



All I got instead was a bunch of rhetoric, links to papers without explanations of what they proved, and finally trying to shift a burden of proof onto me. Classic ignorance and total inability to support your case.


you got links to papers that you have claimed to have read, but its obvious you haven't.




I'm done here. You've made it clear you have no specific evidence to present here. Just another troll.


nice, so bye. You've made it clear that you are unwilling to take your head out of the fantasy world you live in.



the papers contained your answes. more than just fires and impacts caused the collapse of the towers. anyone who bothered to read the papers and even the NIST report would know this.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 


It's not my job to prove your case for you.

I hope you at least realize that much.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by RipCurl
 


It's not my job to prove your case for you.


funny but I didn't ask you to do that since I have no case to prove (if you haven't noticed, but 911 was already figured out). I asked you to read teh NIST report and independent papers for the evidence you seeked.

Of course you wouldn't do so.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
I have no case to prove


So you aren't saying that the towers fell from the plane impacts (and everything they caused) after all?

You say it was "already figured out" but still haven't shown where and how.

I have no case. I don't claim to know what exactly caused the towers to collapse. That is the difference between me and you. And it isn't because I haven't read those papers, as I apparently understand them better than you do. I have repeatedly told you I have already read the papers. Apparently you are unable to understand what this means.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by RipCurl
Simply: Fire, heat, damage and unprotected steel trusses, caused BOWING of the floors within the towers. That bowing pulled in the exterior columns inward. When STEEL looses its strength, it can no longer support the weight its trying to hold up. When the weight exceeds the amount that a weakened steel truss can handle, a cascading event happens. Floors started to collapse onto each other, and floors beneath are now subjected to force that it was never mean to handle. Full collapse occured.


This is just junk science and is typical of what is found in these reports. This kind of thing reminds me of a Bugs Bunny cartoon I saw when I was a kid. Bugs is in a space ship that is out of control and careening to a crash but just about a foot from impact, when all is lost and the end is immanent, the space ship runs out of gas and stops. Bugs opens the door and climbs out. That's a plausible scenario. Makes perfect sense. The spaceship ran out of gas.

In the Bugs cartoon not all factors invoved in such a scenario are taken into consideration. Momentum is left out not to mention the force of gravity. A lot of the reports on the WTC collapses are like the Bugs Bunny cartoon. Same with the various computer animations created.

We used to have a Phd. in structural engineering in the forum who went by the name of Griff, whose virtual full time job on this site was debunking misleading and half baked scientific reports on the collapses of the towers. He finally got so fed up with debunkers citing this stuff that he "lost it", posted some of his recriminations and got banned. At least that's what I think happened. This is a murky area and I'm just speculating although I know he was fed up with debunkers posting this stuff.

Believe me it was our loss, not his.

Dr. Griff, Phd. used to debunk this stuff routinely and even debated a hired government engineering gun in the forum.

In another thread an engineer in the forum did a calculation of the energy require to destroy one of the towers (actually each tower, I believe) using a computer program and showed that many of the studies again do not take into consideration all of the structural materials destroyed in the collapses, particularly the pulverized concrete, and found that there is not enough potential energy in the buildings to accomplish all of the destruction that happened on that day, without including additional energy from somewhere, i.e., explosives.

Then there is the matter of symmetry. A collapse without explosives being used to keep it symmetrical all the way down can't occur. Period.

Then there is the molten metal in the wreckage that smoldered for weeks. Molten steel, flowing like lava, seen by firemen. An airplane and office furniture fire eighty stories up couldn't survive the collapse to become the cauldron of molten metal at the bottom of the "pile". You don't need a Phd. in engineering to figure that out.

Then there is the fact that these were the first such collapses in history, three of them(!!!) all on the same day. What a coincidence. Another thing that couldn't happen without a nudge.

Then there is the fact that the first tower hit and the tower hit worst collapsed after the second tower which wasn't damaged as badly as the first. The unusual thing about the first tower (the south tower) to collapse was that a fireman had actually reached the level where some of the fires were and radioed that they were small and could be put out easily.

Well, we couldn't have that happening.

9/11 was an inside job, for these and numerous other reasons.





[edit on 1-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 
I was gonna post a thread somewhere on here askin about Dr.Griff. Thanks,ipsedixit!
I was wondering where he ran off to.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Floor 78 in South Tower two isolated pockets of fire and the fireman states he needs two water lines to knock it down. Does this sound like a raging inferno which can comprimise the steel beams in the building to the point of collapse?

whatreallyhappened.com...




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join