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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 73
10
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The first 'hit' was probably expected to cause the Tower to topple. I think that was the intent......of Atta....

The second arsehole, flying UAL 175, just wanted to try as well to topple the other Tower....he could barely aim at the building, but he aimed low....hoping, I am assuming, to knock it down.


We know they had a morbid fascination with those towers and had already failed to destroy them in '93 by that exact method IE make one fall against the other. Well not them personally but others of the same culture/religion background with a hatred for western economics and the threat it posed to their movement.

The reported basement parking area explosion could well have been a co-ordinated part of their plot but just as in '93, it wasn't enough to knock a tower over even with an aerial attack fortunately. I often wonder whether we'd be still discussing alternative conspiracies if the towers had fallen immediately.




posted on May, 7 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hey, bsb....

I didn't dodge your question, sorry if I missed your point about the perimeter columns....

My belief is, the main support structure of the skyscrapers came from the interior. The exterior facade was not load-bearing, as far as I understand....except inasmuch as to support the floor structure, at each level.

Perhaps there are some architects/structural engineers out there who could help this discussion? Tell me I'm full of baloney....but it stands to reason that a tall structure will have a central core of strength, and the floors cantilever and are stabilized by the exterior walls.

So, just a layman's opinion....on building design, from what I've read...

WW



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
My belief is, the main support structure of the skyscrapers came from the interior. The exterior facade was not load-bearing, as far as I understand....except inasmuch as to support the floor structure, at each level.


Well it would probably be informative to you then to hear that NIST has estimated the dividing up of the loads between the interior and exterior structures with a ratio of 60/40, with the core holding more.

I've also heard it placed around 50/50 (probably less accurate), but really this is probably a bad of way of looking at it because the perimeter columns (even if not supporting significant loads at any particular point in time) had enormous reserve capacity, especially on higher floors where there was less weight but the columns were physically the same size. So they could hold about as much weight as the columns on the very bottom of the building that held the whole damned thing up, but they had much less weight actually applied to them.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
weedwhacker, it's hardly worth my time to respond to you, when you apparently don't understand the error that you're making.

The fact that the error is 200 pounds is not relevant.

The fact that there IS an error is relevant.

NIST inputs 62,000 pounds of jet fuel into the simulated model. The model outputs a dispersion of 62,200 pounds. 200 pounds of jet fuel CAN NOT be created by a model.

There is a fundamental error in the NIST model, as it does not check for consistency with the input parameters and the output results. The model is not valid, as it clearly shows flawed calculations.

You don't seem to understand this, as you only quote your airline experience to me, rather than showing any conceptual understanding about programming a computer simulated, mathematical model.


Did the model you made include flight time, distance, winds (tail- and head-) loaded weight (initial weight at pushback including passengers, crew, cargo, fuel decreasing as fuel is burned) of the A/C? Or did you use an average figure for loaded (or Takeoff weight) and the distance flown?

The model also didn't include the position of desks, chairs and the copier on the 75th floor. Would that make the model completely invalid to you?

[edit on 7-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I've also heard it placed around 50/50 (probably less accurate), but really this is probably a bad of way of looking at it because the perimeter columns (even if not supporting significant loads at any particular point in time) had enormous reserve capacity, especially on higher floors where there was less weight but the columns were physically the same size. So they could hold about as much weight as the columns on the very bottom of the building that held the whole damned thing up, but they had much less weight actually applied to them.



While the exterior dimensions of the exterior columns were indeed the same, the wall thickness of the steel that made up those columns got thinner as they ascended.

It's ridiculous to state that any engineer would make the columns the same all the way up.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Realizing there were static loads there the whole time that were completely designed for (ie not "added weight") is not an explanation as to why the core structure would fail at the exact same time as the perimeter columns, if the initial failure mechanism is the one NIST described.

I don't see this as an explanation as to why the core was sinking at the exact same time, either. There was no evidence of fire causing major heating to the actual box columns in the core structure, and NIST says this themselves.


a- They were also designed to have all the columns intact. And I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they failed at EXACTLY the same time. Virtually the same time? I could believe that.

b- Yes, NIST never said that the core columns were heated to failure. They detail "creep" in their report. So the whole "the fires weren't hot enough..... argument is a strawman if you're argueing against the NIST report, because they never stated that.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes it was very mature. I was trying to be fair with you and give you the benefit of the doubt.


Seems more like you are just being immature and trying to make yourself look better then others.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Del, as you know, the engines idle at about 600 pounds/hour. The APU, if it is running, burns about 800 pounds per hour.

So thank you for contributing.....others just don't seem to understand that 200 pounds of fuel is insignificant....it's 29 gallons!! I can by an aquarium to hold 30 gallons!!! It's about four feet by two feet by 18 inches....I have a TV bigger than that!!!

Ohh....someone also mentioned the computer model missed 900 pounds of airplane weight, overall....900 pounds, from a machine that weighed 200,000 pounds, give or take....at departure?!?!?!?

Yes.....the take-off weight included....the Aircraft basic weight....and the Fuel....and the Payload.....

Sheesh!! 6 people could equal 900 pounds!!!

I'm sorry to be so blunt....it is bordering on disrespect to those who lost their lives, that day. I will likely burn in Hell....but, since I don't believe in Hell, I will likely not burn at all.

We make our own Hell, in our minds.....

WW



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
b- Yes, NIST never said that the core columns were heated to failure. They detail "creep" in their report. So the whole "the fires weren't hot enough..... argument is a strawman if you're argueing against the NIST report, because they never stated that.


www.tms.org...

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.




[edit on 7-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While the exterior dimensions of the exterior columns were indeed the same, the wall thickness of the steel that made up those columns got thinner as they ascended.


By a couple of inches thickness or so, and only very slowly as the floors ascended. My point is that the exterior columns were of related size while loading greatly decreased towards the tops of both buildings. Thus you have a lot of reserve capacity.

You can take out your ruler and decide how petty and trivial you want to be, before accepting my point as a valid one.

I say simply look at the buildings and do not say another word about it to me, because it's not worth arguing about when a photo is instant proof of concept: columns remain consistent up and down, but it is obvious where the most loading is distributed.



It's ridiculous to state that any engineer would make the columns the same all the way up.


You're ridiculously petty.

Are you having trouble realizing how strong the towers must have been built? Using only very simple reasoning?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
a- They were also designed to have all the columns intact.


Knocking out columns is not "added weight." Duh.

If knocking out columns caused such severe overloading, the towers would have both collapsed immediately upon impact.

In reality, nowhere near enough columns were severed for this to happen, and even NIST and FEMA give figures for this that indicate less than 15% of the columns being severed on the impacted floors by the planes. This is something else that is futile to argue. You can either accept it or continue thinking ignorantly.

Also there is neither evidence nor precedent for how much damage fire can physically cause -- by itself -- to a steel structure. This means after the impacts. Historically they have never done much. I can of course post historical cases, ie examples of steel high-rise fires. I know they wouldn't mean anything to you, though, because it would be inconvenient for you to think that they do mean anything.



And I'd like to see some kind of evidence that they failed at EXACTLY the same time.


For you here, there is no such thing as "exactly" the same time.

If you want to go into thousandths, millionths, even billionths of a second, you would do it to find discrepancy.



Virtually the same time? I could believe that.


And so you think you have somehow reduced the issue, when you really don't even understand it at all.



b- Yes, NIST never said that the core columns were heated to failure. They detail "creep" in their report.


Not as a global collapse mechanism. And even at that, the member here "Valhall" is an engineer, one that has experience with technical reports at her place of employment no less. I want you to ask her about what NIST said about creep, if you are truly interested. (I know you are just arguing with me.)


So the whole "the fires weren't hot enough..... argument is a strawman if you're argueing against the NIST report, because they never stated that.


You're preaching to the choir on this one.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Did the model you made include...

Perhaps you have trouble reading what is written in some posts. I have not made a model.

I showed that the NIST model is in error when it outputs 62,200 pounds of jet fuel for an input of 62,000 pounds. Similarly, the NIST model output 196,700 pounds of airplane debris for an input of 197,600 pounds.

It might be best for you to refrain from posting a reply until you can comprehend what I have written.


The model also didn't include the position of desks, chairs and the copier on the 75th floor. Would that make the model completely invalid to you?

It was mentioned in the NIST report that they may not have modelled the office furniture correctly. Sure, it will create further error to an already flawed model.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by _Del_
Did the model you made include...

Perhaps you have trouble reading what is written in some posts. I have not made a model.


I propose that you use your understanding of the physics involved to make your own model. Then I will compare it to the model made by the experts and see which one is more reliable. Please include your raw data, the equations used and how you came about the data you inputted. Please include the copier on floor 75.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I propose that you use your understanding of the physics involved to make your own model.

Your proposition is pointless. This thread is not about me or what I can do. This thread is about the evidence that may lead to a conspiracy.

I propose that you explain to me how a computer simulated, mathematical model, that has allegedly been created by experts, FAILS to check its own results for self-consistency.

Please explain to me how people can place faith in a model that magically creates 200 pounds of jet fuel and magically vanishes 900 pounds of airplane debris?

Here's a reminder - these are quoted figures from the NIST report. It's in print. Their model is WRONG. Doesn't that tell you something?



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by _Del_
I propose that you use your understanding of the physics involved to make your own model.

Your proposition is pointless. This thread is not about me or what I can do. This thread is about the evidence that may lead to a conspiracy.

I propose that you explain to me how a computer simulated, mathematical model, that has allegedly been created by experts, FAILS to check its own results for self-consistency.

Please explain to me how people can place faith in a model that magically creates 200 pounds of jet fuel and magically vanishes 900 pounds of airplane debris?


Please show me how much fuel the plane burned from push back to the collision. Do not use an approximation that results in a differential of more than 25 gallons(approx. 200 pounds).

Please show me how much the plane weighed at impact. Do not use the number at pushback because it will be considerably higher than than the final height (because the plane burns fuel which weighs something). Where did you gather YOUR data from and how can we know it is more reliable than the NIST's which has an admitted approximation built into it.
Notice: this last sentence implies that I agree the data is slightly different from report to report. Please show the model you've built that shows what the difference between the data will be. Use what you accept as the "real data" (please show how you came up with the real data) and show how the model predicts a much different scenario and result.


[edit on 7-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


www.tms.org...

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.




Thank you !!


This confirms exactly what I've been saying. NIST never said that the core columns failed due to heat weakening.

They explain heat induced "creep" and load transfer to the exterior columns.

Thanks again.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

By a couple of inches thickness or so, and only very slowly as the floors ascended. My point is that the exterior columns were of related size while loading greatly decreased towards the tops of both buildings. Thus you have a lot of reserve capacity.

You can take out your ruler and decide how petty and trivial you want to be, before accepting my point as a valid one.

I say simply look at the buildings and do not say another word about it to me, because it's not worth arguing about when a photo is instant proof of concept: columns remain consistent up and down, but it is obvious where the most loading is distributed.


a- my point is that your statement that the outer columns at the impact zone were no where near the strength of the columns near the base. Reserve capacity is ridiculous also. Sorry, but maybe you need to talk to an engineer about this. They do not overdesign buildings just because they want to. They're paid to figure expected loading and design to meet that requirement. They are paid to NOT waste money on having excess capacity.

b- your point is NOT valid.

c- columns remain consistent in the exterior dimension only. The wall thickness and GRADE of steel changed over the height of the towers. This makes a huge difference.

Sorry, but you're off in the ditch with this line of argument....



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
Please show me how much fuel the plane burned from push back to the collision. Do not use an approximation that results in a differential of more than 25 gallons(approx. 200 pounds)

At the time of alleged impact, NIST used figures of 62,000 pounds of jet fuel. It's in the NIST report, I suggest you read it.



Please show me how much the plane weighed at impact.

Sure, NIST used a figure of 197,600 pounds at the time of alleged impact for the weight of the plane.

Now, what's the whole point of your post?

Here's the crunch: NIST input 62,000 pounds of jet fuel into their model and it gave a result of 62,200 pounds.

NIST input 197,600 pounds of airplane debris into their model and it gave a result of 196,700 pounds.

You apparently fail to understand this on very basic, fundamental conceptual levels. The NIST computer model is flawed. It does not check for self-consistency.



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Knocking out columns is not "added weight." Duh.

And so you think you have somehow reduced the issue, when you really don't even understand it at all.

Not as a global collapse mechanism. And even at that, the member here "Valhall" is an engineer, one that has experience with technical reports at her place of employment no less. I want you to ask her about what NIST said about creep, if you are truly interested. (I know you are just arguing with me.)

You're preaching to the choir on this one.


a- never said they added weight. Another strawman. The point is, if you have a structure that needs 6 volumns to stand, has 10 columns, but you remove 2.... well then, your reserve has just been cut in half, right?

b- there is also a difference between your girlfriend being "exactly" pregnant, and "virtually" pregnant. Hope you learn the diff.....

c- Good, I invite her to post here if she'd like. I'd also like to see what she says about your comment about the outer columns being "about the same strength" as the columns at the base. Agree?

d- Good. Glad to see you're a thinking man.....



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Every one should know that, at the gate, before every departure, each airplane starts with an 'operating weight'....this is the weight of the airframe, plus the 'estimated' weights of the catering supplies, the minimum crew, and their baggage....the required safety equipment....etc, etc....

This OW is the starting point.....THEN, we add the 'payload'....the passengers and their bags, and known cargo. Well....hate to break it to you, but the 'passengers' are calculated at an average weight of 180 pounds each (summer) 185 each (winter). Their checked luggage (notice we haven't accounted for the carry-ons) are assigned 25 pounds each.

Yeah....right.....

ANYWAY....now, with the OW and payload, we have the weight BEFORE fuel....which, of course, has weight. It is called the ZFW....'Zero Fuel Weight'

This ZFW is assumed to never change, in a flight....so we add the FOB (fuel on board) to the ZFW, and have the actual 'weight' at any given time.

Hope this helps.....clear up a few things. Sheesh!! 900 pounds!!! as a point of inconsistency? Heck, that's two passengers!!


WW



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join