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 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.
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.
Its very easy. Pick one of the papers. read it over. come back and post your questions about that paper.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by RipCurl
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.
READ the papers. Until you do, you are only showing that you are not interested in educating yourself.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, ok, well show that to me in a paper and show me how they proved it. Take your pick.
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).
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?
Originally posted by RipCurl
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.
Originally posted by RipCurl
The ball is in your court.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by RipCurl
It's not my job to prove your case for you.
Originally posted by RipCurl
I have no case to prove
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.