 |
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 11:49 AM by billybob
|
i would like to see an accurat(ish) scale model reproduction of the impact, subsequent fires and collapse.
even a "runaway collapse" duplicated under laboratory conditions would ease my mind. especially the tower seven collapse. i want to see a concrete
and steel building go into to perfect footprint freefall because of a few spot fires on upper floors, and assymetrical structural damage.
wishful thinking, eh?
i will get around to reading at least some of this report, but the thing is, it's not that relevant to a conspiracy theorist. if it had been a study
done by conspiracy theorists, i'm quite sure the report would look diametrically different.
it would ask tough questions like, "why the fudge did you destroy all the evidence? my reputation as a scientist is on the line, and you're asking
me to come to a foregone conclusion based on flimsy evidence"
and this IS the crux of the matter. the whole mission of the NIST report is to determine how exactly how the crashes caused the towers to fall. that
is a foregone conclusion, and all data will be viewed in that light. any data that conflicts with that conclusion will be ignored as erroneous.
"hey! you foxes and wolves and weasels over there! we need someone to guard the henhouse! any takers?"
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 09:06 PM by HowardRoark
|
 Originally posted by billybob
i would like to see an accurat(ish) scale model reproduction of the impact, subsequent fires and collapse.
even a "runaway collapse" duplicated under laboratory conditions would ease my mind. especially the tower seven collapse. i want to see a concrete
and steel building go into to perfect footprint freefall because of a few spot fires on upper floors, and assymetrical structural damage. 
Billybob, did you even bother to scan through those reports?
That is exactly what they did. They created computer models using known properties of the building materials, the structural design of the building,
the aircraft, and established engineering principles. They then ran various simulations while varying the parameters to establish a range of
possible outcomes. They then compared those outcomes to observed events associated withthe towers and 9/11.
Oh, wait, did you expect them to build it out of balsa wood and paper mache?  Maybe then, instead of two airplanes, they could of had a man in
a Godzilla suit smash them.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 09:13 PM by HowardRoark
|
Originally posted by muzzleflash
i agree with ya adamj
smells Very Fishy
see what u get for actually reading some of it LOL
the plot thickens
so it says 'doors and walls were blown out All the Way down to the basement' and there were 'flash fires' in the lobby?
LOL that is totally consistant with building demolition from my point of view
That is very consistent with a jet fuel fireball explosion in the core area, to my point of view.
Remember the fireball that exploded outside the building in WTC2? well that was from the right wing only. Imagine that blasting down inside the core
area?
***i am not a demolition expert or architecht; but i have taken physics and chemistry for multiple years so im not totally retarded  **
Good, then you can tell us the volume of superheated gases produced when 10,000 gallons of jet fuel ignites.
why are they giving us so much to go with? lol
its like they want us to Know something fishy is going on
like they are trying very hard to tell us
without saying it outright
Well, go ahead and work up the math and prove that it is fishy.
[edit on 28-6-2005 by HowardRoark]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 09:23 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
For representations of things smashing or collapsing or falling with scientific wonderment and engineering SFX, the following represent the quality
positions of Popular Mechanics March 2005 and the 9/11 truth movement, respectively:
Dino de Laurentis interpretation (WTC), likened to Popular Mechanics:
www.imdb.com...
www.kongisking.net...
Peter Jackson interpretation (Empire State), likened to 9/11 truth movement:
www.kingkongmovie.com...
If'n ya don't get the humor, just fergit it, it wuzn't meant fer ya after all.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 11:43 PM by billybob
|
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Billybob, did you even bother to scan through those reports?
That is exactly what they did. They created computer models using known properties of the building materials, the structural design of the building,
the aircraft, and established engineering principles. They then ran various simulations while varying the parameters to establish a range of
possible outcomes. They then compared those outcomes to observed events associated withthe towers and 9/11.
Oh, wait, did you expect them to build it out of balsa wood and paper mache? Maybe then, instead of two airplanes, they could of had a man in
a Godzilla suit smash them.
not yet. i'm just letting it be known right off that they are fitting the data to a foregone conclusion. ie. that there were no bombs, and that the
building fell down because it was weakened. from there it is just a matter of saying, "we need more jet fuel concentrated in this area, how can we
get it there? i know! elevator shafts! we can have it going up and down the eleveator shafts, we can have it pooling on some floors, and we can
have it concentrating all of it's energy on exposed beams. yeah, that sounds pretty good! have a cigar, howard!".
i know your saying they had great computer models going on, and i won't doubt you. but, i'm not a programmer, so i wouldn't know how to disprove
or prove the accuracy of their models. i'm sure there is someone somewhere who can, though. it's only a matter of time until someone comes out and
"debunks" these reports, which i'm sure ARE loaded with accurate information.
it's gonna take me a while to download that stuff and go over it. believe it or not, i do have a life outside ats. i'm a stunt actor. i dress up
in rubber suits and smash little toy tanks with my big rubber shoes.
don't worry, howard. i'll read it, in time.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-6-2005 @ 11:53 PM by MaskedAvatar
|
billybob
You are right. The fundamental law of computer programming or modelling remains to this day: GIGO.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 12:07 AM by RebelSaint
|
RECREATE THE CRIME SCENE
How about we get enough people or at least one very very generous person to create enough financial power to rebuild exact replicas of the WTC in some
remote desert area and then purchase exact model airplanes used in the attacks stocked with MAX fuel and then conduct 911 Version 2.0 and on global TV
crash the planes into the towers at the exact points that they did using remote controlled technology WHICH HAS LONG BEEN AVAILABLE and wait for them
to collapse.
I bet you that the towers will not collapse and the fire will eventually burn itself out. If this were done and all the evidence pointed towards the
Govt. Inside Job theory I BET some ridiculously lame excuse would still be used. Hell I'm even for stocking the planes with 19 of our top government
officials if the country is down for it. LET'S RECREATE 911 AND SEE IF PLANES INTO BUILDINGS CAN REALLY BRING THEM DOWN OR NOT
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 12:10 AM by Boatphone
|
Originally posted by ANOK
NIST is a government agency.
No chance of any bias there 
Do you really expect a government agency to come out and admit it was a controlled demolition?
If you do then you are really naive as far as how government does things.
Do you know how large the government is?? Is everyone in on it??
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 03:06 AM by ANOK
|
Wow do people miss the point or what?
Did you miss the part about any evidence that would point to wards a controlled demolition was either taken away or suppressed, long before NIST did
their little evaluation?
Everybody doesn't have to be "in on it", the government works by purposely not letting anybody know the full picture of what they are doing.
They only know the bit they work on and can't grasp the full picture, just like some people here on ATS.
They may even know some of what's going on, just like some people on ATS.
But we're slaves to a system we can't get away from.
Lot's of people in the government know "something" is going on, in fact I've found more government workers who don't trust their employer, than
the rest of the population.
But we are made to feel powerless next to the government.
We are told in many different ways that if we didn't have them (government) we would all fall apart.
They create situations (Pearl Harbour, Waco, Federal building bombing, 9-11, terrorist threat etc...) in order to keep the world in a state of
perpetual chaos and confusion. That gives the government power.
Through our fear of a perceived enemy, created by agency's of our government, government convinces us that we need them to protect us. Keep up the
pretence of a threat by releasing random terrorist threats that never pan out.
Keep the population in a state of fear, it makes them very easy to control.
The government wants more power? It feels the population is getting negative feeling to wards it? Create more chaos and confusion. Keep the
population thinking about, and in fear, of anything other than it self.
The only people who know the full picture of what all the little pieces do are those at the top.
That's why government IS so big... The thinner they spread their dirty work, the less chance of someone putting the pieces together.
Enjoy what little freedom you have now, cause you won't have even that much longer, unless people wake up. Phat chance of that eh?
AP&F...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 01:23 PM by billybob
|
Originally posted by ANOK
Wow do people miss the point or what?
Enjoy what little freedom you have now, cause you won't have even that much longer, unless people wake up. Phat chance of that eh?
AP&F...
actually phat is our BEST chance, anok. if you can find a copy of "phatic communion with bob dobbs", you MIGHT understand why.
here's a primer....
someone has a flat tire, and is parked at the side of the highway. you walk over and say, "got a flat?".
phatic communication is, in this case, the verbalisation of an understood communion which has already happened. you have shared something beyond the
meaning of the words. you, in fact, sir, are QUITE PHAT! i recommend a strict media fast for maximum health benefits.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 04:56 PM by ShadowHasNoSource
|
Originally posted by billybob
someone has a flat tire, and is parked at the side of the highway. you walk over and say, "got a flat?".
Nope. Driving along and the other 3 just filled up with air. Darndest thing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 06:09 PM by LazarusTheLong
|
Originally posted by AdamJ
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004
I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate
that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to
temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree
that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt
the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results seem to clear things up (3), rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." you noted that the samples available were
adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one
might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the
building’s steel core to "soften and buckle."
"most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be
above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet
fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.
. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
sorry for the long quote...I tried to cut it down to its meat.
Good points for both sides...
let us not ignore the fact that this person works for the water and environment part of the UL, not the engineering part. So he has added personal to
his proffessional interest. (which is why he was probably fired)
But he does know his facts. This does seem to be the smoking gun...
If UL labs says the towers should have stayed up during the fire, then they should have. (according to tests and engineering analysis of thermal
metalurgical specifics)
I challenge any person OR ENGINEER to show that they (U.L labs) are wrong...
sorry Howard... but even OTS cant save you against the great god U.L...
...they say jet fuel wouldn't even come close to causing the collapse...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 07:09 PM by ShadowHasNoSource
|
We already know they pulled WTC7. For anyone that has watched the demolition experts on Discovery Channel, you know they can't safely pull a
structure without quite a bit of planning and foot work. WTC7 was pulled picture perfect. This brings the obvious conclusion that WTC7 was rigged to
blow prior to the events of 911.
Silverstein himself gave us the smoking gun right there. The other towers don't even need to be mentioned.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 07:39 PM by ganymede
|
Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Hey Howard,
Ask your buddies in at the Pentagon or Whitehouse, which ever office you frequent to ask Bush to declassify a few hundred million dollars worth of
documents, get him to lift gag orders on fire fighters and some at the FBI and have him reform all the metal that was scraped and melted.
Be a big help,
Cheers
BINGO!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 07:49 PM by HowardRoark
|
[; posted by ShadowHasNoSource
We already know they pulled WTC7. For anyone that has watched the demolition experts on Discovery Channel, you know they can't safely pull a
structure without quite a bit of planning and foot work. WTC7 was pulled picture perfect. This brings the obvious conclusion that WTC7 was rigged to
blow prior to the events of 911.
Silverstein himself gave us the smoking gun right there. The other towers don't even need to be mentioned.
What an amazing example of circular logic.
There is NO evidence that explosives were the cause of the collapse of any buildings on 9/11, in spite of the wishful, fanciful and uninformed
speculations by many on this forum.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 07:55 PM by afterdark
|
Originally posted by HowardRoark
There is NO evidence that explosives were the cause of the collapse of any buildings on 9/11, in spite of the wishful, fanciful and uninformed
speculations by many on this forum.
There is Howie, and you've seen it. You're just too narrow-minded and.....there's not even a good word to describe you.....to see beyond what CNN,
FOXNews, White House Press Conferences, and Daddy Rumsfeld tell you.
You are part of the group that believes our government is inherently good.
Sadly, you are wrong, and deep down, past all your patriotism, and dreams....you know it. One day you'll see and realize it for yourself, as have I.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 08:06 PM by HowardRoark
|
Originally posted by ganymede
Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Hey Howard,
Ask your buddies in at the Pentagon or Whitehouse, which ever office you frequent to ask Bush to declassify a few hundred million dollars worth of
documents, get him to lift gag orders on fire fighters and some at the FBI and have him reform all the metal that was scraped and melted.
Be a big help,
Cheers
BINGO!
What gag order?
That is one of the biggest myths of 9/11 out there. There is no gag order.
Think about it. The rank and file firefighters of New York lost 343 of their brothers, fathers and best friends that day. Do you really believe that
a gag order would stop them from talking about it if they really believed that their was a conspiracy involved?
If you do believe this, then you are truly uninformed about human nature and the personality types that become firemen.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 08:17 PM by Lanotom
|
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Think about it. The rank and file firefighters of New York lost 343 of their brothers, fathers and best friends that day.
If you do believe this, then you are truly uninformed about human nature and the personality types that become firemen.
I prefer not to quote you HR but I must.
I ask you and everyone else to listen to the personalities of these fireman.
Listen carefully what they said the day they were there. Not you! Them.
www.godlikeproductions.com...
www.godlikeproductions.com...
Of course logic before lunacy.
Let's also not miss Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
www.serendipity.li...
And since there is a proposal to have a 9/11 forum lets add this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 08:44 PM by HowardRoark
|
www.firehouse.com...
Again, I have to ask:
What gag order?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 29-6-2005 @ 08:48 PM by TheShroudOfMemphis
|
Originally posted by HowardRoark
What gag order?
That is one of the biggest myths of 9/11 out there. There is no gag order.
Think about it. The rank and file firefighters of New York lost 343 of their brothers, fathers and best friends that day. Do you really believe that
a gag order would stop them from talking about it if they really believed that their was a conspiracy involved?
If you do believe this, then you are truly uninformed about human nature and the personality types that become firemen.
Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'
Highly recognized former chief economist in Labor Department now doubts official 9/11 story, claiming suspicious facts and evidence cover-up
indicate government foul play and possible criminal implications.
June 12, 2005
-- FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are
also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
www.arcticbeacon.com...
Show me the article that says it's a 'myth' Howard?
While your at it, start answering some of the other posts which have caught you out rather than shooting at what you think are easy targets. You made
the 'challange' to defy the NIST report you posted and some people have but you've ignored their posts. Whats your game Howard? Why not address
AdamJ's posts?
There's no point trying to convince you of anything anyway. You have your FEMA and NIST reports and are happy to settle with those. Others like to
listen to people that their and involved and that means listening to Firefighters who said there were bombs or translators who were told to stop
translating etc etc.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
