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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
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.....


Ok, thanks for the replies.

I thought you had something serious to say, I realize now you dont have anything important to contribute.

Yes the 10000 page report says it all. It says 'inconclusive'.

Troofers aint much for the maths eh? I would ask for your credentials but its not worth splitting hairs.

Goodbye.




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Mason mike
 

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



I should mention that this video is on the Physics911 website, which has excellent scientific explanations for the many 9/11 anomalies that the government refuses to discuss:

physics911.net...


PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
PS - I AM a prick. Get that straight, kid.


No doubt about that. But, getting back to topic.

My "cropped" photo was cropped because ATS doesn't allow big files to be posted, so I had to crop. If you can prove that the dead load calculations didn't include 6-inches of gypsum, cementitious material and spray-on fireproofing, then be my guest.

Question: Why would they include 6-inches of these materials if they were not that thick?

I'm just saying the outer columns of the core would have gypsum (drywall) around them. This could easily account for 6-inches. Since we don't have the structural documentation, what do we do to find the answer? Be "pricks" to each other? Yeah, that's productive.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


So, before, when I pointed out to you that 6" of fire insulation would result in something like a 15 hr+ fire rating, you agreed that that wouldn't be the case. You also pointed out just the other day about cost, etc and how engineers don't spend unnecessary money on uneeded "stuff".

Now you're going against all your previous statements and asking me to prove that there WASN'T 6" of insulation.

What gives?

Why the sudden change?

Do you all of the sudden think that there might have been 15+ hrs of fire insulation?

And don't insult anyone's intelligence about the cropping, it ain't gonna fly. You cropped that photo in a dishonest attempt to back your statement. After we agreed that a 15 hr fire rating is not probable, you stated something to the effect that maybe the hand written doc was for a dead load calc. WHich of course means that you were aware that is was indeed a calc for dead loads BEFORE you even posted it, and were just covering your tracks.

Pathetic.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Since we don't have the structural documentation, what do we do to find the answer? Be "pricks" to each other? Yeah, that's productive.


No Griff, we shouldn't be pricks.

What we should do is make honest posts.

You failed in this instance in a miserable attempt to try and prove your point.

But you got caught.

SO how do we find the answer? By actually finding the answer in the NIST. ANd if it's not directly stated in there, by using our deductive reasoning and figuring out just how much drywall would be necessary to meet fire codes.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


I watched the planes hit, I saw the buildings fall. I walked around pissed off at the terrorists for a while. I, like many others, didn't see the implifications of WTC7 untill later. When I saw the three holes in the pentagon, and no video of the plane hitting, I thought there must be some mistake. At his point I have gone past the blindly believeing Alex Jones and his theorys, but I have to question some of the things that happened. why did the evedience (ie. steel beams) get moved out of country so quickly? Why is it that a building with so much security (pentagon) doesn't have a camera pointing at that side of the most important millitary building in the USA?
Some CT people just keep saying the same thing over and over wihtout listening to other opinions if they are different then theirs. I try to keep an open mind and I can accept that two planes hit WTC1 & 2 and they fell. I have a hard time with WTC7. I can accept that something hit the pentagon. Show me the video of the plane, and I will accept that. I understand what was told as the truth, but I still have questions. Nobody can answer these as of yet to my satisfaction. My opinion means exactly jack sh!t and I am aware of that. But I still have the right as an American citizen to ask these questions.
I appriciate the informed way in which you present your information. If you could present some pictures of the plane hitting the pentagon, I would be backing you up on every occasion as that is my smoking gun.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Well, pricks aside, I'd just like to point out that NIST didn't attempt to investigate or explain the towers' collapses beyond the initiating failures; they simply stated "Global collapse ensued." (NIST, pp. 314 & 321)

Seems a rather large omission, at least to me.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 


Mike,

What you have presented is a strawman tactic. You and I both know that there isn't a photograph of flight 77 striking the Pentagon. (besides the fish-eye lensed camera)

Do you know that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke upon re-entry a few years ago?

You believe that right?

How come?

EVIDENCE!

There isn't any video and or photographs but there is substantial evidence that proves it.

I don't want to get into this too much. Bsbrays thread has been derailed quite a bit. I'm hopeful you know where I am going with this.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Gottago...

A damn breaks.

You find out why.

Do you continue the investigation as to why the water destroyed the homes behind it?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well that's what this thread is about Mr. "Butz!" The proof that is supposed to be in there.



It's all in there.

You refuse to believe any of it. Instead, your religious-like belief in CT's make more sense to you, even though there is NO credible evidence to believe in any of them.

That's your problem, not mine.


The OS is a working hypothesis and therefore also a conspiracy theory. You seem to be the dogmatic one here. You have yet to answer the OP. Your best reply was that 'All 10000 pages answer everything'. Way to cite your source. Way to apply critical thinking. Way to avoid the question. Way to use a logical fallacy to debunk.

I would vote for you for way above top secret if I could (sic).



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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.



they are meaningless. as i pointed out on page one.

"what the two dimensional drawings above fail to recognise or consider, is that the floor joists and columns were a web, with cross members running perpendicular to the joists and columns shown. the columns could not drop down without the roofline sinking, which it did not. the columns could not drop because they were supported from both above and three sides on the outside of the core (two on the corners), and four in the center.

if the columns can't drop, then the floor joists don't drop. if the floor joists sag, it is because they are deforming and becoming more taffy-like, not getting any stronger or heavier."

it's a multi-vectored problem that cannot be solved with 2D stick man math and unrealistic diagrams. no offence, but throat yogurt's hard work was all for naught(except perhaps, blinding some of the less skilled with science and visualisation), "kid".



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
this is from dr. frank greening: (phsyorg


The heat-weakening of the steel on the fire affected floors...... Let’s look at NIST’s “science” dealing with this topic as presented in NCSTAR 1-3 and 1-3D. In the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-3 we discover the sad truth about NIST’s sample collection as a source of evidence of elevated temperatures experienced by WTC steel members. Thus we read on page xli:

“More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter columns; however, these columns represented only 3 % of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C.”

Notice the “disclaimer” by NIST that the samples were not “representative” when it was NIST scientists that selected these samples and claimed they were adequate as “physical evidence” for their planned investigations. Anyway, NIST go on to admit that it also found “limited exposure to temperatures above 250 deg C” for all the core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

Now you would think that such a dearth of evidence of high temperature exposures of the WTC steel would make NIST look a little harder for collapse mechanisms involving steel at low temperatures, say less than 400 deg C. But NIST does not do this, and even states in Chapter 6 of NCSTAR 1-3D:

“Creep at temperatures less than 400 deg C is insignificant, so the specifics of the behavior at low temperatures will not affect the measurable strain.”

Now this is a very sad thing for NIST to say since there are PLENTY of experimental studies that show creep buckling of steel columns can be VERY significant at temperatures well below 400 deg C. (See for example Zhan-Fei Huang et al. in Engineering Structures 28, 805 (2006) and J.L. Zeng et al. in Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59, 951, (2003).)

Nevertheless, NIST, in its wisdom, carried out creep tests at temperatures as high as 650 deg C, even though it has no physical evidence that any WTC steel reached such temperatures. But NIST’s research only gets further from reality when we read that in its creep tests specimens were heated for at least 2 hours when we know that any individual steel member in the WTC was heated by the fires for less than an hour. Worse yet we find that NIST’s creep tests were on truss-rod “A-242 steel” which turned out to have Cr and Ni alloying additions that did not actually conform to ASTM A-242!

But buried deep within NCSTAR 1-3D, on page 137 to be precise, we find NIST’s ultimate non sequitur in its consideration of steel at high temperatures. Thus, after assuring us that steel WEAKENS when exposed to high temperatures, NIST glibly admits that:

“Some steels initially increase in strength with increasing temperature, through the process of dynamic strain-aging, but this behavior is not a priori predictable”

For NIST’s investigation of 9/11, the “scientific method” consists of:

1. Rejecting anything that is unpredictable as being unimportant.
2. Looking at the available physical evidence and when it fails to deliver on expectations conclude it is of no value because it is not statistically significant.
3. Relying on the results of tests carried out under conditions that were never realized in the towers.
4. Creating computer-generated “simulations” of the aircraft impacts and fires and tweaking them until the desired result (the towers collapse) is found. This is called “validating the simulation”.


(mods, i know it's a big quote, but it is an awesome summation of the main problem with the NIST report, and it's from a debunker to boot)



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


By what reasoning do you disconnect the lower portions of the towers and put them down steam? They're part of your dam.

Logical fallacy.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And don't insult anyone's intelligence about the cropping, it ain't gonna fly. You cropped that photo in a dishonest attempt to back your statement. After we agreed that a 15 hr fire rating is not probable, you stated something to the effect that maybe the hand written doc was for a dead load calc. WHich of course means that you were aware that is was indeed a calc for dead loads BEFORE you even posted it, and were just covering your tracks.

Pathetic.



The only pathetic thing around here is your continued attempt to misconstrue what I say and then turn around and call me a liar and "debunk" your own strawmen. As you've said yourself, you're a prick. And I don't deal with pricks anymore. I'm done trying to be nice to you. Welcome to ignore, once again.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
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.


You may think so, but then again, you aren't posting where they show this, either.


The thread title again, in case you missed it: "What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?"

I was going to put you on ignore, too, after reading your last string of posts, but for some bizarre reason I'm going to wait for your next non-response. I only feel like asking the same question so many times before getting tired of only getting sarcasm and stupidity in return, not to mention you take up and derail most of the thread with it. The best medicine for a troll posting just to feed his ego identity, is to ignore it, cut it off from its food supply. Don't confuse with "victory;" remember that people are actually reading your posts and I don't think anyone is impressed. On your next post you'll most likely be on another ignore list.


"What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?" -- at least Cameron tried.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
And I don't deal with pricks anymore. I'm done trying to be nice to you. Welcome to ignore, once again.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The best medicine for a troll posting just to feed his ego identity, is to ignore it, cut it off from its food supply. Don't confuse with "victory;" remember that people are actually reading your posts and I don't think anyone is impressed. On your next post you'll most likely be on another ignore list.

I'm wondering what would happen if everyone put the Throat/ButzYogurt clan on ignore?

If a professional debunker falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a noise?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well, it seems the appropriate time on this thread--since it is degenerating into a virtual cafeteria food-fight--to address bsbray's OP as I believe he intended: just what did NIST prove and how did they prove it?

The heart of NIST's report was finding the mechanism of the onset of collapse for WTC 1 & 2. After the pancake theory bit the dust, the replacement was that floors sagged to such an extent that they pulled in the exterior column-mesh enough to create global failure. The deflection of the floors that was needed to initiate collapse was IIRC, 52 inches.

As Kevin Ryan has shown, the NIST team first went about examining this theory by rebuilding a floor of the wtc and exterior columns and subjecting this to 2 hours of high-intensity fires--twice the time of fire in the actual buildings, at much higher temperatures. The live loads were doubled. No fireproofing was used, in the belief it was all shorn from the steel.

The result of their empirical experiment? 2 inches of deflection.

Not nearly enough. Even after stacking the deck. So, what to do?

Go virtual. Eight computer simulations were then ran, with increasingly unrealistic parameters, until, on the ninth try, they received the collapse that that they sought.

So that's how the WTC towers fell, in NIST's view--Nintendo science.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

The only pathetic thing around here is your continued attempt to misconstrue what I say and then turn around and call me a liar and "debunk" your own strawmen. As you've said yourself, you're a prick. And I don't deal with pricks anymore. I'm done trying to be nice to you. Welcome to ignore, once again.


Truth hurts, I see.

This is actually a good turn.

Now I can debunk whatever drivel you post that I want and I won't have to deal with your dishonest replies.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, I understand what you want to do.

You want to break it down to tiny bits and try and debunk what the NIST says by posting drivel from wacko CT sites.

Of course, this ignores the total body of evidence that the NIST represents. The fact is, the proof that you seek about the NIST, is in the NIST. Sorry if that doesn't fit your debate agenda.

I've said this before, along with others -

Why don't you show what parts of the NIST are absolutely wrong. Show your evidence.

Also, have you researched into whether or not it is technologically feasible to determine exactly WHERE the sulfur came from that "swiss cheesed" those 2 columns? Just think of the victory that you could have if you could post proof that it was.

I've looked into it, and I've gotten a couple of definitive answers.

Why haven't "you"?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I'm wondering what would happen if everyone put the Throat/ButzYogurt clan on ignore?

If a professional debunker falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a noise?


Golden,

If you dislike me for my attitude..by all means ignore me. If you are going to ignore me because of the information I share, then my friend you are going 100% against what it is you guys preach. "Asking Questions / Demanding Answers... or "Searching for the truth"

Either way... you want to put me on ignore? Please feel free I can assure you that I will not loose sleep over it. You see, a good amount of truthers in here appreciate the information that is shared in here by bothe sides. But hey, sit back and high-five your buddies that agree with every youtube video and CT site they visit... if that's how you are searching for the truth.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join