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.

 

Why is there no computer simulation of the WTC collapse?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Do you remember if it was an especially strong leaf blower? I have no idea how fast those things typically pump out air, but I know there can be a lot of variation.


That's probably a pretty typical commercial Leaf blower. For under $500 i could sell you one that blows at close to 200mph with over 900cfm at the tube.

www.redmax.com...




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That's probably a pretty typical commercial Leaf blower.


Nice!

Now we have a means to get that 100 mph part of the challenge, too.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not see it? Maybe just couldn't see it, 'cause I know how much personal satisfaction you would get from rubbing that all in my face, as your ego inflates and maybe even climaxing a couple times in a way I won't describe in detail, but no cigar, anyway, man....
...
But like I said, I don't have any problem with a difference of opinion; I have a problem with the focus on individuals rather than objective issues


Now, now - not being able to live up to our own standards are we... oh dear oh dear. I hardly promote any standards other than expecting people to be able to live up to their own.. And they can't

I'm not the one trying to promote a 'better' world free from evil and wrong-doing.... Turn the other cheek and all that




It's not your opinion that I take issue with. It's your insinuation that 'we' are "masters of deception." I don't much like your insinuations that we are ignorant and have no idea what we're talking about, either, nor the general air of your posts as of late in general. It's like you've been on one bad trip ever since that charcoal fire crap didn't add up.


'Charcoal fire crap' was a theory and has as much chance of holding up as the explosives. Unusual conditions can be met sometimes, without having been there you can't say it is definately wrong. It has as has much evidence as your explosives...

And I didn't know you would try and bury the model dos made.
I was just making a sweeping statement without any knowledge of who (if anyone) would actually start debunking the model. I'm sorry it came out the way it did


And what do you mean about a scale model made with the same materials could withstand the same speed wind as a full size one? You can't be expecting people to build a model out of tiny little I-beams and bolts, with little concrete floors and little toothypic trusses can you?
I thought going into that much detail wasn't important for making a computer model, hence my a point that the reason behind there being no computer simulation of the collapse could well be down to lack of time and resources. Yet now it is important to fulfill 'your challenge'?
Tell me, when someone builds the models to the spec and it collapses as expected, are you then going to modify the challenge to include a core?
What happens if it still collapses?

Pointing out that no steel frame buildings have collapsed like that in the past doesn't mean much as there are none like the WTC towers and substantial disasters, thankfully, do not happen very often.
It's like someone coming to the conclusion that cars are safe and there is no chance of having an accident after the first 5 rolled of the production line - then getting funny and accusing people when the first accident happens.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
bsbray, do yourself a favor and let go. Discussions with "AgentSmith", "HowardRoark" and the likes will get you nowhere. They're not on here searching for truth, believe me. Neither will they ever concede anything even remotely pointing away from what they seek to protect. Funny how that matches common disinfo tactics. Guys, tell me: how much cheaper than Larry were you?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I’m no expert on computer simulation, but I assume you would need access to the WTC’s blueprint. Unfortunately those are not available to the public. (maybe, see below)



The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remain off-limits to the public three years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information.


source: 911research.wtc7.net...

However the sites own sources for this information does not support this. (I had to use the cached version)
911research.wtc7.net...

althought it does say:



Also missing are the original contract specifications for the buildings from the early 1970s.


But to my knowledge that’s quite different from blueprints. Anyone?

If this can be confirmed, it could explain the lack of computer simulation.




Conspiracy...you are correct. For any type of analysis, you need not only the "blueprints"...(by the way...us engineers stay away from that term...it is "construction drawings"...real blueprints haven't been around for some 50 or so years at least...if anyone wants to know why...look it up)...you also need the as-built drawings AND the specifications. I know in my line of work (yes...structural engineer but I DO NOT design skyscrapers or anything dealing with buildings as like the WTC towers).....specs are more important than drawings. So, yes you are correct in saying that we need all three documents to fully understand anything. Funny enough, they are NOT available to us. If there is nothing to hide? Why are they hiding EVERTHING?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta



I would say these would be helpful in producing any simulatio, yet not critical. The blueprints are the plans for the towers and could be used to build the towers from scratch again. If i am not mistaken.



Sorry, but yes....you are mistaken.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Oh...I guess my quote of Conspiracy...which was only about really a paragraph...was too much. Sorry Mirthfull....what do you want me to do? The whole post was quoted because......EVERY word was useful. Now...I want my points back. If not...I WILL be making a gripe about it. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I WILL be making a gripe about it. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!

I saw your gripe, and you won't be getting the 20 points back.

Your double-quote was too large. There is no need to replicate that much content within an already very large and exceptionally busy database.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Sckeptic...it's not the points at all...hell 20 points can....you know. What are you talking about "double quote"? I can't quote someone? What the F is going on here?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
BTW...this is my response from MM...
quotes u2u removed. PB applied. Contemplation better ensue
What is THAT supossed to mean?

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
You're not supposed to use massive quotes in your posts. I've had points taken away for the same thing.


lol... Mac, buddy..... be honest now.... you been knocking back a few?


[edit on 2-1-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
He's mine, SO, back off!

This is my JD, techie stuff is yours!



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
What are you talking about "double quote"? I can't quote someone?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no mystery. Our policy on large quotes has been clear for a long time.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
bsbray, do yourself a favor and let go. Discussions with "AgentSmith", "HowardRoark" and the likes will get you nowhere. They're not on here searching for truth, believe me.


Oh right, you're in my head are you and know what my thoughts and motives are? Amazing, I thought it was the Government with the mind reading stuff..

I'm looking for truth, I just know where to draw the line..




Neither will they ever concede anything even remotely pointing away from what they seek to protect. Funny how that matches common disinfo tactics.


Much can be said the same for you to be honest, does it occur to you that your path has become so well trodden that you find it hard to see any other side or explanation? The most hysterical thing is the way you and others seem to actually believe I work for the government! Seeing as I don't (though I don't expect you to believe that) and I simply don't believe the crap that some people come out with - that conclusion simply reinforces my opinon that some people are really, really paranoid and have lost the plot slightly.

When I started out I followed pretty much the same path myself, the only real difference between me and you is that I learnt that the real truth is rarely what we are told in the mainstream, but still not some of the rather extreme rubbish that a lot of people try to promote.

However, I suggest if you are interested in discussing myself, Howard or anyone else you start a seperate thread about, or look out for my new website in the future www.allhailagentsmith.com.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
What better model do you need? Listen, the buildings didn't topple over from impact nor could the jet fuel (kerosene) plus the office material have created a fire hot enough to melt the colums. Yet BOTH of the towers disintergrated into fine dust particles. People ignore that the amount of force necessary to pulverize x amount of tons of reinforced concrete and steel was not present due to the plane's impact or the building falling on itself. The spire on top of the tower began to disintergrate BEFORE its freefall descent into ground zero. Which is odd because none of the building should've went into freefall if it indeed collapsed under it own weight.

All this is to say that there is enough film footage of 911 to cast irretractable doubt over the official story. Add to that the odd demolition of WTC7 that afternoon and red flags are going up like crazy. WTC7 was not hit by a plane and yet collapsed in a virtual free fall fashion. IF it was demolished by explosives (likely) then that operation would've taken weeks to set the all the charges. Ditto for WTC 1&2.

Why argue? Someone planted bombs in the WTC buildings and blamed it on Al Qaeda.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
ATS has an awesome section discussing many point regarding 911

www.abovetopsecret.com...

also make sure to check out the disinformation surrounding 911 here:

911research.wtc7.net...
and here:
911review.com...


[edit on 3/1/06 by ConspiracyNut23]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
"AgentSmith", I don't need to be "in your head" to come to rather solid conclusions. People are not characterized by their mere intentions, but by their actions.

If you claim I was simply discarding evidence supporting the official story, tell me which? NIST's metallurgy analysis? FEMA's mention of steel sulfidation? Silverstein's "pull it"? The ludicrous claim brought forward by "experts" that the only instance of scramble and interception in the decade before 9/11 was the Payne Stewart incident? etc pp

Cool that you don't expect people to believe you when you say you're not benefitting from playing ignoramus, as that would be akin to people being supposed to believe that there never was, nor ever will be, a conspiracy being perpetrated by US or other interests.

If you're really a genuine truth seeker, what explanation did you find convincing enough to no further discuss the squibs, the unprecedented paralysis of the US air defense and the freefall collapse of WTC7? I'd



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lumos
If you're really a genuine truth seeker, what explanation did you find convincing enough to no further discuss the squibs, the unprecedented paralysis of the US air defense and the freefall collapse of WTC7? I'd



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Well, guess what: I have read all the threads of interest on this forum, and nowhere have I seen you adress the points I just asked you to adress. If, by some weird coincidence, I should've missed something, provide a link, please.

The reason why there are no simulations of the collapse might have to do with:

NIST's metallurgy analysis, FEMA's reported sulfidated steel findings, the lack of precedent of WTC7's collapse. The paralysis of Air Defense. etc pp.

So instead of wasting line after line denying your actions or pointing at the tinfoil hat you seem to perceive on my head, for once provide some factual arguments (not c/p'd off somewhere, if you can), preferably on topic of the 4 points I mentioned above.

If you feel justified in sidetracking about any thread that's none of your doing, I will in turn feel justified to sidetrack this one for a moment.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The point of the thread is that the computing time required exceeds the likely resources that are available to the agencies involved in providing the reports.
If they are in on the conspiracy they could falsify information to backup the official line and they could make a computer simulation that would look the part and perform as they want to portray. Unless they make the raw data available and you have the knowledge to interpret it no-one could argue.

I'd be interested in seeing your proof or argument against the thread topic cheers, or are you engaging in those diversion tactics you'd be so quick to jump on yourself



[edit on 3-1-2006 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join