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.

 

What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


How hard is it to grasp gravity and fact that a buildn structure works together as a whole. One side down means the other side collapses straigt down, unlike a tree which basically just looses balance. Plus you have gravity pulling straight down.




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Thanks for going out of your way to ask someone else to "help" me, but I don't have any misunderstanding about the effects of buckling on the ability of a column to transfer a load to the next column.

Don't worry, despite his meaningless but fancy-sounding mathematical calculations, neither does Mr. "Throat Yogurt."



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It proved that a 110 story building can fall after a plane flies into it at 500 mph due to structural damage and fires.

I would think that was obvious.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Oh those pesky calculations.

I guess you'll just ignore them, right?

And instead argue from incredulity, since it's soooooooo much more believeable.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by alienj
 


Troofers have a hard time understanding that gravity works that way.

They believe that the physics dictate that it should have toppled. But then again, they ain't much for the maths. LOL.....



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I could say something smart-assed here like "When was the last time you passed your PE, "Seymour"?" or mention how you just got schooled with that concrete attachment comment (not surprising considering you aren't the PE), but by avoiding posting smart-assed things like that, I hope you'll notice that one would happen to come across as less of a prick to people.



Actually, I'm waiting for an explanation as to why he would crop a photo of a hand written dead load calculation on the fire insulation, and then try to pass it off as evidence that the columns had insulation 6" thick.

Then agree that it would give a ridiculous fire rating of 15+ hours if that was the case and so retract his claim.

And now, 2 weeks later, go back to defending his 6" point by asking me to prove that it WASN'T like that.

PS - I AM a prick. Get that straight, kid.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Don't worry, despite his meaningless but fancy-sounding mathematical calculations, neither does Mr. "Throat Yogurt."


LMFAO @ meaningless.

Oh wait... Golden... it LOOKED like a controlled demolition to you. Ignore the physics and the math. Your eyes know what they saw right?

Typical.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Oh those pesky calculations.

I guess you'll just ignore them, right?

And instead argue from incredulity, since it's soooooooo much more believeable.

Here's how much NIST (and undoubtedly, you) understand NIST's own "calculations", 7 YEARS LATER:


L.3.6 Technical Approach for Analysis of the Working Collapse Hypothesis

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

Yeah, Throat Yogurt, you've got as much physics on your side as you've got real yogurt in your throat.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Oh, I understood his post AND what the calcs were about.

They were posted to answer a question about how much it would take to pull in the ext columns or something similar.

But now, it's sadly apparent that instead of reading the whole thread and being informed as to why he posted it, you throw out the "meaningless calculations" laugher.


Evidence that you STILL don't get it is this last post where you make some quote about the global collapse explanation.

Do try to keep up. You're embarassing yourself.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I fear the NIST report has opened a "pandoras box" of global catasrophe. If any, I repeat ANY bulding can be brought down by a fire (WTC7), then the terrorist will have a field day with our cities. Any wacko with a bic lighter is a threat! And why are there still companies that do controlled demolition? They have been proven to be a bunch of snake oil salesman. Pretend that they do "months of planning" to bring down a building when in reality all they have to do is start a couple of fires. I think I might get into the CD business. All I have to do is get some guy like Throat Yogurt to make up some math to add to the smoke and mirrors aspect, and POOF! instant millionare! I look forward to laughing at you little people on my way up to the top of the money heap!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


omg... I needed that.

Great job Golden... omg my sides hurt from laughing.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


Mason,

I didn't "make -up" the math. Please try to keep up.

As usual, you have failed to comprehend that two airplanes were deliberately flown into these structures. the third one had a 110 story skyscraper rain tons of debris on top of it and had fires burning in it all day.

Again... please keep up.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Isn't the 4th a federal holiday?

Don't you Throat and ButzYogurts at least get the weekend off?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 



LOL.

Yeah, go ahead and see how far that gets you.

What CT goofs don't realize is that you wouldn't be able to get a demo permit, from burning, if you still left all the combustibles in the building - carpets and plastics in particular.

Ya see, there's this agency called the Air Quality Management Board that might object to burning plastics......



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Isn't the 4th a federal holiday?

Don't you Throat and ButzYogurts at least get the weekend off?


I see that you've admitted that you have nothing to back your silly little "meaningless calculations" line.

And so, now you must fall back onto the tired old "disinfo agent" thing. That is a sure sign that there are still weak minde CT sheeple that believe that garbage.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You know the government pays lousy. We get double time and a 1/2 for working the 4th weekend!



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Thread asks about ' proof ' - I wouldn't expect it. Too many variables.
What to look for are the glaring untruths ( I have not read the document ).
What I mean by this is : someone with an awful lot of power wants interested parties to be exposed to misinformation.
FBI agents scrambling down a debri pile with perpetrators ID in hand...
Cheney in the exercise...
Obvious misinfo on what hit pentagon...
We must accept that we know these things only because someone wants us to.
If I were an engineer who is capable of understanding the report, I would look for something that stands out as downright stupid- then add it to the file.
At some point, there may be enough info that ( by deduction ) an informed answer might be available.
I got a kick out of a news blurb some months ago, ' building burns for days... and doesn't fall down '.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


it was sarcasm, extreem sarcasm, like throat yogurt said, please try to keep up.

and for the record Mr. yogurt, I meant no disrespect to your math, I am sure it is correct, I just don't think we are being told everything about those buildings coming down. Never before, and never after has a building went like these due to fire. I have to question that as a person with a brain. If I chose to hand in my brain, I will let you know and promply jump on the "what ever you say" bandwagon.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


Mike,

You are a person with a brain? I would hope so.

If so, why are you so conveniently omitting the part about two planes hitting these buildings? The "no skyscraper has ever..." b.s. is so old here.

Here is a question I'd like an answer to:

Why do building codes require steel to have fireproofing?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 

Here's all anyone needs to know about the WTC collapses:





top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join