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.

 

Ausie Engineers say Austrailian Buildings vulnerable to collapse

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think the fact that you so vehemently attacked the article and the two Australians is enough to warrant it being here.

You mean like you have viciously attacked Professor Jones in every thread that you can, including this one? And how you have attacked ATS members by calling them "conspiracy kooks" and "nutcases" on innumerable occasions, not just in this thread?


Just like you “theorists” I am “connecting the dots.” Only the dots I am working with are based soundly in science, data, and engineering.

Once again, please explain what dots you connected and how they are relevant to the total and near freefall collapses of WTC1 & 2, and the total and near freefall implosion of WTC7.


If you don’t like this thread, then simply stop posting in it.

Exposing your transparent tactics and your shillery gives me a sense of gratification. If you don't like it, and you can't explain the relevance of what you post beyond a subtle yet completely unconnected inference of global pancake collapse theories, then simply stop posting in this forum.


[edit on 2005-12-6 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The Jones paper was presented as a "Peer" reviewed paper when it clearly was not (and will never be). The Australians paper will be peer reviewed.

That is the difference.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
very entertaining thread. 2 thumbs up


ah yes, im here for the info (rather misinfo in this case)

only so much you can compare any 2 buildings, especially the WTC 1 & 2 to a 52 story building under a simulation.

sorry, will take much more for me to believe that. good try though



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
only so much you can compare any 2 buildings, especially the WTC 1 & 2 to a 52 story building under a simulation.


Are you are saying that you can’t compare the WTC towers to other buildings, simulated, or not?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The Jones paper was presented as a "Peer" reviewed paper when it clearly was not (and will never be). The Australians paper will be peer reviewed.

That is the difference.


So what if their paper will be peer-reviewed? There are a million papers that will be reviewed this month that have nothing to do with collapsing buildings. You clearly attempted to imply that Ngo's hypothesis is relevant to the WTC collapses, and now you backtrack and state that you are simply showing us what peer-review is and isn't. Congratulations. You finally admit that your entire thread is simply a credibility attack tactic on Professor Jones and his paper.

We'll wait and see if Jones' paper will be reviewed or not. And in the meantime, why don't you concentrate on actually discussing the contents of that paper and debunking it, if you can? Whether or not Jones is metaphorically burned as a witch at the stake by his funding-driven college or not is completely irrelevant to the accuracy or inaccuracy of his hypothesis, and your cheap tactics won't change that fact one iota. It's truly sad the level that you have sunk to, from the debater of the facts you once were, to a lowly smear-campaigner.

You think Jones' hypothesis is incorrect? Then in your own infamous words:


HowardRoark wrote:
PROVE IT! Put up or shut up. Whats' a matta? Chicken?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Howard, I can promise that if what you preach here is as soundly based in the sciences as you let on, then you would be able to prove what you claim instead of resorting to disinfo tactics out the wazoo.

Not even NIST, your holy grail of the official story, has shown jack squat in their reports. They've shown what they suggest are buckled perimeter columns, even exaggerating the number of apparently buckled columns greatly, and then they tell us that the whole freaking buildings collapsed from those few buckled columns desptie enormous redundancy and the independent strength of the cores. But they don't tell us how that happened. FEMA has even tried to suggest the cores didn't even exist. Then NIST created their own office fires within a closed metal box of an environment to try to suggest those fires in the WTC towers were much hotter than they actually were. That's the bulk of their "science." And even for those, they don't tell you how they performed their experiments or got their results so that they may be reproduced and double-checked! That is the "science" you're talking about, every time you use the word.

And these dense fools apparently ate it up like it was some revelation of loopholes in basic physics, that somehow, buildings can completely collapse like magic from simple and minor damage. Were they drinking all through their college days? Or are they just that thoughtless that they will believe the sky is an odd shade of holographic green if they are so told by in-depth "scientific" government studies?

How did global collapse ensue? NIST doesn't tell you. Where did the molten steel come from? NIST doesn't know what you're talking about. What were the squibs? NIST doesn't mention those. Must not've happened. The angular momentum disappearing? NIST conveniently leaves that out, too. The fact that the collapses did not slow the whole way down, and were perfectly symmetrical? NIST says nothing. Guess it was "inevitable," as NIST says without further explanation.


Those are basic physics problems that were violated, that NIST ignores and thereby leaves out of consideration completely. Not even structural engineering, but basic physics being plainly violated by the WTC collapses if they fell by gravity alone. And these structural engineers are arrogant enough to suppose basic physics does not apply to them or their work? No, I think they're just dense. Where is the science, Howard? The science you claim these meatheads are using is bologna.

We know what science is. Show us some. Not disinfo or any other psuedo bullcrap that you're always throwing around, obviously with the intent of deceiving people. You seem much too intelligent to actually believe what you say. I'm thoroughly convinced your only purpose here is to deceive.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And these dense fools apparently ate it up like it was some revelation of loopholes in basic physics, that somehow, buildings can completely collapse like magic from simple and minor damage. Were they drinking all through their college days? Or are they just that thoughtless that they will believe the sky is an odd shade of holographic green if they are so told by in-depth "scientific" government studies?


So who are we talking about all of the members of the American Society of Civil Engineers? The faculty at BYU, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, Harvard, etc. Are they all dense fools or are they colaborators.

What about those engineers in other countries? Canada, Austrailia, England, France, Germany, Japan, India? Are they all "in on it" too, or are all of the worlds engineers just a bunch of dense fools that just aren't as smart as you and WCIP?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
only so much you can compare any 2 buildings, especially the WTC 1 & 2 to a 52 story building under a simulation.


Are you are saying that you can’t compare the WTC towers to other buildings, simulated, or not?


you can, you just can't efficiently with the building supplied in the article for reasons too blatent to post.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
So under what conditions can you compare another building to the WTC towers?



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
1. 2 buildings built to it's specs but scaled down so it wont be as a tremendous financial burden as the original. plane with the exact scale (scaled down proportional to the buildings) with the proportional fule etc... you get the idea?

recreate the events of that day and accordingly and wait for the results sans humans

2. or simply create a simulation in which we test out all possible explanations of how the bulding collapsed and see which one emulates the collapse of both towers. i believe only the pancake theory has been simulated (correct me if im wrong).



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So who are we talking about all of the members of the American Society of Civil Engineers? The faculty at BYU, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, Harvard, etc. Are they all dense fools or are they colaborators.

What about those engineers in other countries? Canada, Austrailia, England, France, Germany, Japan, India? Are they all "in on it" too, or are all of the worlds engineers just a bunch of dense fools that just aren't as smart as you and WCIP?


Have you heard anything from these people? Have you heard them state their opinion one way or the other? Or is it more likely that they haven't even really looked into NIST's report, or don't even really care? Especially with foreigners. And how many people of the groups you've listed have put serious thought behind NIST's report, and would care to risk their careers to stand up to the US? And finally, how many engineers standing up are we being told about by the media?

If all of the people you've just named off agree with NIST, then yes!: they're just as dense as those two people you've been citing so vivaciously. I am confident in basic physics. I am confident in Isaac Newton's work, Principia, and I am confident that I understand these very basic laws of physics. I am also very confident that WCIP understands these basic laws, and LaBTop, and BYU's Steven Jones, and hordes of other people that do not buy the official line. The great majority of people frequenting here do not believe the official line, either. It is your academic elite that are telling us, the common folk, what is and isn't right scientifically.

But guess what, Howard? There are still a few of us that think for ourselves. Basic physics is not brain surgery. It's elementary as hell. Yet, when I email a leading "researcher" of 9/11 asking about angular momentum, the basic law of conservation of angular momentum in regards to the WTC collapses, I get, in response, a 'dunno'.

...

Needless to say, I'm amazed with the total ignorance these people habitually exhibit. I'll go with Newton's work over the academic elite goons that hardly examine what they're even preaching any day. You put way too much stock into these guys. They aren't exactly geniuses, in the least.

But, Howard, let me suggest something to you. You put so much stock into these people because of, among other things, degrees, and other sorts of social recognition. Are these people to be our only means of determining what's objectively right or wrong? Has thinking independently been outlawed already? Are you seriously suggesting that the opinions of these people should totally override any outside thought into the matter? Because that's what it sounds like to me: "Stop thinking about it! You're wrong! I'm not going to discuss the matter in any detail, but just look at what these people think!"

I should tell you that I don't think it would be of much use to your cause to go around telling people to stop thinking for themselves, and to just start listening to these dense corporate-backed bums, when the very motto of this site is "deny ignorance." Always taking the words of "experts" as fact, even over one's own investigations, is not exactly the pinnacle of denying ignorance.

But my main point is this:

What is important here, in this matter or any other, is not any degree. It's not any social position. It's Knowledge, and Information.

It's what you assume the people you parade around here have, that I question.

So why not argue the information? Why not try to explain away all these oddities that have persisted in the official line since day one, instead of running behind your "experts" for support, without citing any evidence whatsoever supporting either your or their opinions? You know the subject, so you can't chalk it up to ignorance. We have engineers here of our own. We are all familiar with the material, and even if we aren't, we quickly learn from each other and the sources we post, no? We are totally up for an intelligent discussion, and we have been. But it's hardly possible when you keep running behind "experts" and flaunting them around as if they are gods on Earth, reincarnations of Einstein and Newton, without addressing any of the meat of the problems. It's disinfo at its finest. And I don't think it's any coincidence that you're using disinfo tactics, either.

So why don't you finally step up and get back on topic, drop the routine with parading the numbskulls, and actually have a civilized and intelligent discussion on the topic of the WTC collapses, or even 9/11 in general, and not a discussion on who thinks what without even referencing why.

I'd like to see why these people think as they do, and not simply what they think. Disinfo out the butt.


[edit on 6-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'd like to see why these people think as they do, and not simply what they think.

[edit on 6-12-2005 by bsbray11]


That is a question I've always asked myself about conspiracy theorists.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

That is a question I've always asked myself about conspiracy theorists.



geez. you've got an answer for everything else.

prescott bush was brought up on charges for helping finance hitler's war machine? true or false?
operation paperclip was named after it's method(immigration papers with a paper clip were known nazis that the american government wanted for their minds). nazi german scientists, in the order of about 2500, were given new names and lives as americans. true or false?
operation northwoods. true or false?
watergate. true or false?
the iran contra affair. true or false?

i'm really sorry to say, i'm losing respect for your intellect. howard, old man. your math is good, but your social studies are hurtin'. like wcip said, you used to argue with facts. now it's all just appeals to authority.

and just so this isn't off topic, lol, why would aussie buildings be any different than other buildings around the world? they weren't built in national knowledge silos. skyscraper design isn't weapons design or some other sensitive issue. architecture, bless it's heart, is a completely open book. the same engineering principals are applied the world over. afterall, they are ANCIENT principals.
sometimes it's fun battling inanity, and other times, it's just sad.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
It's been awhile since I've been here, but I just had to comment on this. It was too much of a gem to pass up.


bsbray11: Why not try to explain away all these oddities that have persisted in the official line since day one, instead of running behind your "experts" for support, without citing any evidence whatsoever supporting either your or their opinions?


This message has got to be the most impressively eloquent and dangerously convincing appeals by a conspiracy theorist for his opponent to voluntarily choose to partake in a discussion that is not based on verifiable and citable evidence.

Why would anyone that has evidence and facts on his side do that? I understand why conspiracy theorists that have nothing but speculation and misunderstood science on their side would want the intelligent person they are debating to put down his weapons (facts, citable evidence, testimony of experts in the field, etc.) and fight a "fair" fight either in the mud or in a battle of speculation based on nothing solid and nothing verifiable. But there's no reason why someone with solid evidence to back up their position would want to do this.

Since grade school we are taught to cite our references because it strengthens our position. A position is further strengthened when the references cited are from authoritive sources in the relevant fields rather than clowns asserting positions in areas that are not their areas of expertise. Peer-reviewed papers are heavily cited, often with more footnotes and quotes than original material. When the authoritive references being cited agree with the assertion that the author of the paper is making, it adds tremendous credibility to the argument and shows how the author made logical steps to reach his final conclusion. You will find no serious peer-reviewed article of any complexity that is without citations.

I know conspiracy theorists don't have any credible scientists or engineers that are specialists in the relevant fields that will side with them so I can understand why people like you would like others to get into a wrestling match without the evidence. After all, you don't have any evidence or credible science so it would make things easier for you if the other side would give up the tons of evidence and tons of credible science and authoritive references from experts in the field. That'd make things easier for you and level the playing field...

But it wouldn't get us any closer to the truth.

Anyway, bsbray11, my compliments. Like I said, I've never seen such an eloquent effort by a conspiracy theorist to so brazenly beg his opponent to stop using facts. That alone was worth the price of admission and was a good 10-dollars-worth for me and my whole family.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
letxa2000,

My mistake; let me reword that part:

"Why not try to explain away all of these oddities that have persisted in the official line since day one? Instead, all you have been doing is running behind your "experts" for support, without citing any evidence whatsoever supporting either your or their opinions."

I suppose I should work on my sentence structures or what-have-you.


Hope that clears things up a bit though.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

operation paperclip was named after it's method(immigration papers with a paper clip were known nazis that the american government wanted for their minds). nazi german scientists, in the order of about 2500, were given new names and lives as americans. true or false?


True. How do you think Chuck Yeager passed Mach 1 and Neill Armstrong walked on the moon? It's not exactly a state secret, so where's the conspiracy?


and just so this isn't off topic, lol, why would aussie buildings be any different than other buildings around the world? they weren't built in national knowledge silos. skyscraper design isn't weapons design or some other sensitive issue. architecture, bless it's heart, is a completely open book. the same engineering principals are applied the world over. afterall, they are ANCIENT principals.


I'm sorry, could you repeat that again?

ANCIENT principals, you say...

Which ancient principals are these we're talking about here?

The use of steel? Errrm, when was the bronze age superceded by the iron age? When was the iron age superceded by the steel age?

The use of concrete? Errrm, just for my benefit, you understand, but when was concrete invented?

The use of reinforced concrete as a load-bearing structure?

The art of pre-stressing reinforced concrete?

The only building principle the ancients shared was the pyramid, because if all you have is stone or mud then before you go up you must first go out.

The whole point of pyramids is that they are proof that form meets function, without steel the only way they could gain height was through a pyramid, nothing else will take the weight. It wasn't until the Roman colliseum that any sort of height was acheived without a pyramid.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
well, i was refering to newtonian physics there, mister pre-stressed.

you know. the basic laws of force and motion?

i knew some guppy would come up with that 'argument'.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, i was refering to newtonian physics there, mister pre-stressed.

you know. the basic laws of force and motion?

i knew some guppy would come up with that 'argument'.


Uh-huh, so if I type in "architecture" on my Google page and do a search it will give me a copy of Newton's dissertation to the Royal Society regarding his theories and research into gravity and motion?...

Perhaps if you used a different lure, you would be catching different fish...I mean, when I want to talk about the films of Michael Caine the first thing I reference is the Greek tragedy Prometheus Bound...



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by billybob
well, i was refering to newtonian physics there, mister pre-stressed.

you know. the basic laws of force and motion?

i knew some guppy would come up with that 'argument'.


Uh-huh, so if I type in "architecture" on my Google page and do a search it will give me a copy of Newton's dissertation to the Royal Society regarding his theories and research into gravity and motion?...

Perhaps if you used a different lure, you would be catching different fish...I mean, when I want to talk about the films of Michael Caine the first thing I reference is the Greek tragedy Prometheus Bound...


so then, are buildings immune to these laws? what causes a collapse?

i'm not actually putting you on ignore, but *plonk*, i don't like your tone or tactics.

ciao, my logically challenged, overtly literal friend.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Oh man, that's just too funny for words...

You don't like my tone!?! What happened to "Mr pre-stressed" the "guppy"?

If you had spoken about Newtonian physics, instead of ancient architectural principles, then you wouldn't have a problem.

You chose to bring the Egyptians, Mayans, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Toltecs, Anasazi, Aztecs, Khmers et al into it. Maybe you should examine your words before you post them. Try the "Preview Post" button. Read them aloud, see how they feel in your mouth. Does it give the effect you want?

And while the principles of Newtonian laws may by timeless, the laws themselves are not ancient. You do know when Newton posited that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join