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.

 

NIST apologetics inc.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
NIST's new 'collapse for dummies' flash animation

okay, i had to ROFL at this one. LMAO, even.

i'd like to see if anyone can guess what i found so funny.

anyone? guess?




posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Is it that when they show the temperature index the entire outline of the building is all blue- So there is no impact fire or exterior fire shown on the outside of the building? Im just guessing though, i may have read it wrong...



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Does it have anything to do with this?:




Those trusses must get damned heavy when they're hot.



Check out the truss spanning from the core to the perimeter wall in this image:



[edit on 18-6-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
not bad. funny, but not ROFL for me.
i agree there's a whole lot of blue in that pic.

it was interesting to hear him say something "CTers" having been saying forever. the jet fuel burned up very quickly. within five to ten minutes. and then to say, the fires migrated around the building. fuel in a burning area was consumed in about twenty minutes. the fire was on one side of the building when it collapsed.

all pretty funny stuff.

i'll wait for some more responses before i give it up the my own personal punchline.

(p.s. for the sake of decorum, let me say i consider this to be tragic comedy)



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Does it have anything to do with this?:





ROFLMAO.

punchline spoiler!

i love how it shears in two places. like someone put cutting charges on it.



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
It snapped due to weight and loss of rigidity. Why is that ROFL? this is not new at all and I have linked it many times. What is wrong with the explnation?

[edit on 18-6-2007 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i love how it shears in two places.


ROFL I didn't think of that, but apparently neither did they!



It snapped due to weight and loss of rigidity.


What load was increased? What made the trusses pull so hard? Do you know how much force that would require, to yank a column out at two places simultaneously?

I'm not even going to ask how the perimeter columns could have lost strength without visibly glowing in broad daylight (which is what would have happened). You're the only one saying that anyway Esdad so I think I'll be ok.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
It snapped due to weight and loss of rigidity. Why is that ROFL? this is not new at all and I have linked it many times. What is wrong with the explnation?


since when do things 'snap' when they LOSE rigidity?

and since when does a truss that is like 'putty' have the strength to pull in a massive box column? NIST screwed up, ....again. and since when does something that is supposed to be 'buckling' (according the official LIE) break(shear) simultaneously in two places, nowhere near the buckling point?

didn't anyone besides bsbray, griff and a few others even pass(or, better yet, UNDERSTAND) their physics course? i wonder how many physics TEACHERS even really understand physics? where the hell are all those hordes of smarmy bastards with their popish authority about this and that when you need them to add weight to your argument, so we can buckle the official tripe, and have it shear instantly in two places?



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
LOL...

"Sophisticated, validated computer models"... That they never released and tweaked the holy hell out of just to get them to fail.

"Lab tests corroborated..." EXCUSE ME? The models NEVER collapsed.

He flat out lies at least TWICE in the first 60 seconds.

Why watch the whole thing?



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by esdad71
It snapped due to weight and loss of rigidity. Why is that ROFL? this is not new at all and I have linked it many times. What is wrong with the explnation?


since when do things 'snap' when they LOSE rigidity?


ESDAD and I have tried to "discuss" physics before... It has not been a very fruitful conversation. when you bring up shear, tensile strength, inertia, net forces, vectors, energy, heat transfer, etc...

He will say "It snapped..." or something along those lines.

I suggest you avoid physics based conversations with ESDAD.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I think the whole thing is a joke. Get this, he says 'we validated our models by comparing them to video'.. um OK so basically they were trying to make a model of the video, rather than a model that takes onboard the correct physical properties of the building. I guess if someone makes a model of the collapse inside a computer than its proof, right? LOL.. If anything, the computer makes it easier to fake.

Why didn't they run a whole bunch of different models including a scenario that simulates explosives, was that out of the question? Surely that could help debunk the CD theory? IMO what it looks like is they just done their best to make their model fit the official story as closely as they could, rather than making an accurate model that explains the collapse.

Basically it seems like their job was to explain it in a way that doesn't involve explosives!

[edit on 19-6-2007 by VicRH]



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by VicRH
I think the whole thing is a joke. Get this, he says 'we validated our models by comparing them to video'.. um OK so basically they were trying to make a model of the video, rather than a model that takes onboard the correct physical properties of the building. I guess if someone makes a model of the collapse inside a computer than its proof, right? LOL.. If anything, the computer makes it easier to fake.

Why didn't they run a whole bunch of different models including a scenario that simulates explosives, was that out of the question? Surely that could help debunk the CD theory? IMO what it looks like is they just done their best to make their model fit the official story as closely as they could, rather than making an accurate model that explains the collapse.

Basically it seems like their job was to explain it in a way that doesn't involve explosives!

[edit on 19-6-2007 by VicRH]

A computer simulation is the most accurate modeling of the collapse. Well, not really I mean a computer can do anything when you program it. See, garbage in and garbage out. Whoever controls the strings, controls the puppet.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by grassyknoll7

A computer simulation is the most accurate modeling of the collapse. Well, not really I mean a computer can do anything when you program it. See, garbage in and garbage out. Whoever controls the strings, controls the puppet.


which is what they did with the fire, AND the plane impact, AND the collapse "initiation".
the collapse initiation model had to be tweaked to 'most extreme' in order to get the DESIRED result, ie., to match the video/photographic evidence

they claim to have modelled collapse, too, if i recall correctly, but won't let anyone see the model.

two chinese engineers modelled the collapse, and it DID collapse under it's own weight, but it took one minute and thirty seconds, not twelve seconds.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Here is a GREAT read about the modeling and NIST:

www.nistreview.org...



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
That IS a good read, Pootie.

It provides these:


“The tests showed that the floors were capable of considerable sagging without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page xliv, para3)

“Finding 7: All four tests demonstrated that the floor assemblies were capable of sagging without failure. The unrestrained test, which had two 0.875 in. bolts fastening the main truss to the truss seats, did not sag sufficiently to bear on the bolts.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para4)

“Finding 8: All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.” (NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5)



Those are all quotes from NIST regarding their truss tests. They completely contradict NIST's most important hypothesis, and they came straight from NIST itself from their lab tests.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I'm wondering why the NIST is being taken seriously, Ok I understand that they have gone above and beyond to try to demonstrate how the buildings came down, but just how critical are these MISSING elements that they themselves deem to be vital?




NIST requests for materials that are currently pending with, or not yet located and/or
provided by organizations
• Original contract specifications for WTC towers
• Construction logs and maintenance logs for WTC 1, 2, and 7
• 9-1-1 tapes and logs, transcripts of about 500 first responder interviews (privilege claim NYC)
• Supporting documents for McKinsey & Company’s FDNY and NYPD studies
• Complete set of NYPD records identified in request lists submitted by NIST (in progress)
• Contents of aircraft (cabin furnishings, cargo, etc.) that contributed to fires (in progress)
• Descriptions of partitions and furnishings in most of the tenant spaces of WTC 2 & 7
• It is vital that this information be made available to NIST



wtc.nist.gov...


Now I might be a little behind but has any of this vital evidence come forward yet?

The first 500 First responder interviews? where is this information? who's got it?

I personally consider this report speculation at best, how could you really investigate when there are still missing pieces to the puzzle? I can't imagine it would be that hard to get that info.

And one more question, who were the tenants of the floors that the supposed
nose's hit?

I am sorry if i'm missing these bits but can some of you help me out here? I heard something about a Japanese Bank being the tenants on one of the buildings..Thanks guys!



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
At the very end he says he would not design a building to withstand an airplane strike, but would keep the terrorists away from airplanes. Gosh, if only our government did their jobs in the first place we wouldn't be discusing the NIST's lame excuses.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
The only thing NIST is ever gonna be capable of proving is how extremely and incredibly biased they are.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Here is a GREAT read about the modeling and NIST:

www.nistreview.org...


Thanks for that. I'll have a look at it.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I have some more commentary on this image I thought I'd share (emphasis added):





Those attachment points must have been super heavy duty to
rip the perimeter columns apart, rather than break. I guess they
must have done the same thing to the core columns, too. And the
cores and permiteres must have ripped apart at exactly the same
time, because once one end rips, the other end can't pull.

I wonder how the trusses pulled the columns in below the fires,
where they weren't heated. And what caused them to pull
the columns in on the south tower, where the trusses at the
opposite corner from the impact were unheated and undamaged?
And yeah, what caused the pulling force even where the trusses
were heated?
There is no explanation for the disintegration of the towers
except controlled demolition that passes the laugh test.



I think it's a good point to make that once this failure occurs (at the truss connection to the perimeter wall, not the exterior column bolts/welds, for christ's sake! How many of you saw what that picture actually shows?), the truss is done as a mechanism to rip columns apart. Once one end snaps, the other isn't going to yank out a core column, too, as if that's remotely possible either.

Shouldn't we have seen a core structure standing with trusses hanging down off from their connections, or breaking away and falling from that point, instead of an immediate belly-flop of a whole floor's worth of trusses, steel trays and slabs of concrete?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join