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: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:19 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.



Your pathetic attempt to say I am a liar pissed me off enough to go the original post where we exchanged this information.

Here's my initial post:



Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
There was also asbestos and more cementous fireproofing. I think Griff knows more about this.


In NISTNCSTAR1-1A, they have a section where it's the handwritten section of "Criteria For Design Inside Of Core Unit Dead Load".

Page 43/166 of the pdf (7 of the actual report)

Listed under "Beam Fireproofing" they have 1-inch contact (I'm assuming this is the spray-on?), 1-inch Cementitous, 1 3/8-inch gypsum plaster and they also have listed under the "beam fireproofing" concrete, lightweight and concrete, stone aggregate but with no thickness.

Page 45/166 of the pdf (9 of the actual report)

Listed under "Column Fireproofing" they have 3-inches contact, 2 1/2-inch cementitous, 1 7/8-inch gypsum plaster w/metal lath and 2-inch solid gypsum block w/2-inch plaster.

wtc.nist.gov...

Which I believe is a lot more than the "flimsy spray-on fireproofing" theory that they want to sell us.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Notice from the beginning that I said it was dead load calculations.

Who's being untruthful here? Either that or your reading comprehension skills are about as prickish as your personality.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Griff]




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
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.

They recovered larger pieces of the space shuttle than anything from any 4 of the wrecks from 911, and it crashed from space...



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

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"

Thanks ThroatYogurt, but I choose to get my information from reliable sources and several times now I've caught you distorting or outright falsifying information.

One recent example I can remember was your claim that only lightweight pieces of wreckage from Flight 93 were found any distance from the crash site, when in fact there were two distinct crash sites and a debris field eight miles wide, according to the FBI.

It's not your attitude -- it's your constant, non-stop, 24/7 efforts to distort and mislead. This is the opposite of "searching for the truth."



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I get my information from reliable sources. Please show me where I got it wrong. If is see that I made a mistake, I will correct it.

The debris that was found "miles away" was paper, nylon, and other light weight materials. Normal distance in an 11mph wind. (approx)Which I believe I quoted from the lead FBI agent on the scene.

You're saying there were two crash scenes? You are so mistaken.

Get your story straight. Better yet... put me on ignore. You are not looking for the truth. You are looking for a conspiracy.



[edit on 6-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


How do you know it was the shuttle? Did you see a video of it break apart? Remember NASA is funded by the government.(sarcasm)



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I get my information from reliable sources. Please show me where I got it wrong. If is see that I made a mistake, I will correct it.

Sorry ThroatYogurt, but you're a disinformation specialist, pure and simple. Quoting part of a story to make it appear as the entire story is dishonest. Here's just one recent example:


Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

 
Why does this get rehashed over and over. Does anyone know how to read?

The debris field that extended far beyond the impact point was of LIGHT MATERIALS !!! Papers etc:

Well, except for it's engines.

Does anyone know how to post a story without spinning it?

Flight 93 engine found 1/3 of a mile from crash site:

web.archive.org...:/www.sharon-herald.com/localnews/recentnews/0110/ln100801c.html


For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts.

"I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered.

"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."

1,000-pound engine piece found "considerable distance" from impact crater:

archive.southcoasttoday.com...


While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the 500 mph impact, they also said a 1,000-pound piece of one of the engines was found "a considerable distance" from the crater in the wide open spaces of the Svonavec Coal Co.

"All you see is a large crater in the ground. The debris field is scattered over 3-4 mile radius:"




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   


Well, except for it's engines.

Does anyone know how to post a story without spinning it?

Flight 93 engine found 1/3 of a mile from crash site:



It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air. It broke off on impact and rolled DOWNHILL (you get that DOWNHILL!)
landing in catchbasin drain. Nothing unusual about that - rolling
downhill.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



Well, except for it's engines.

Does anyone know how to post a story without spinning it?

Flight 93 engine found 1/3 of a mile from crash site:



It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air. It broke off on impact and rolled DOWNHILL (you get that DOWNHILL!)
landing in catchbasin drain. Nothing unusual about that - rolling
downhill.


I got that -- DOWNHILL! OMG, too funny. You're as bad as that Yogurt in the Throat guy. How gullible do you think people are, anyway?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
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.


Regardless of what the stated critical deflection was, they don't offer the figures for anyone to verify this, and it really does not sound right when you think about it, given the relatively limited amount of buckling that anyone can even allege to see in the first place.

The planes severed more columns (less than 15% on the impacted floors in each tower), than NIST can show to have been buckled significantly, even considering that all of the images they show of displaced aluminum coverings actually reflect the state of the steel columns behind them (a lot of aluminum coverings were understandably dislodged without damage to the columns behind them).


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.


This information is worth re-iterating.


In fact,


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.


[...]

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.


This is why I ask -- why did NIST's computer models (in which they admit to increasing certain parameters to reach their desired results) take precedence over the actual lab tests they did, if their theory actually works out in the real world?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:05 AM
link   


I got that -- DOWNHILL! OMG, too funny. You're as bad as that Yogurt in the Throat guy. How gullible do you think people are, anyway?


You seem to have problem understanding basic information - ie when
it is explained that a piece of the engine broke off on impact and rolled
downhil it means that the DAMN PIECE OF ENGINE BROKE OFF AND
ROLLED THERE! It is not part of some conspiracy plot - it is how it
happened!



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



I got that -- DOWNHILL! OMG, too funny. You're as bad as that Yogurt in the Throat guy. How gullible do you think people are, anyway?


You seem to have problem understanding basic information - ie when
it is explained that a piece of the engine broke off on impact and rolled
downhil it means that the DAMN PIECE OF ENGINE BROKE OFF AND
ROLLED THERE! It is not part of some conspiracy plot - it is how it
happened!


It is certainly part of a conspiracy plot, weather it be the OS or another CT. A rose by any other name...

As to 'that is how it happened', no one here can prove it either way. No one was there and no one saw.

People believe the OS and don't want to believe anything else or the believe some other CT and don't believe anything else.

I've been researching this for almost 7 years and haven't seen proof of any complete story. If you think you have you should alert the government because even their version is self admittedly inconclusive.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air. It broke off on impact and rolled DOWNHILL (you get that DOWNHILL!)
landing in catchbasin drain. Nothing unusual about that - rolling
downhill.


Not to go OT, because this thread is about NIST, but really, over 1000 lbs, rolled downhill over 1/3 of a mile, through the trees--and I'm not even going to post one of those photos of 93's crash site, we all have them engraved in our memories--but here you've jumped the shark.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


You and I both know? Maybe you do, but I am a realist. I am not a stuctural engineer, or a pilot, but I am an infrastruture installer. I install things like networks and camera systems. I even design layouts for CCTV systems. Given what I know about cameras and the installation of them there is at least two cameras on that side of the building each looking back at the other to cover any blind spot. Now with the budget at the pentagon, I am quite sure there is more than two. They are probably IP cameras and have very good resolution. At least 30fps. The only video we have seen is from the guard shack and it shows a nose cone of something maybe. I am so sure that somewhere these pictures exist, I would be willing to bet you my business on it. (granted in this economy we are talking about $45 or so.) I don't see what the big issue is with releasing this information. It will clearly show the big plane hitting and all the CTs will move on to Shanksville. To the OP, I am sorry for derailing your thread.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mason mike
 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They have a lot of confiscated video evidence actually. To say that you know what video evidence exists is pure speculation. Thats fine, just pointing it out.

Sorry if it seems off topic (and is to a degree), but just pointing out how much speculation there is from both sides is relevant to the thread as there is much speculation in the NIST (and FEMA and private) doccuments.



[edit on 7-7-2008 by jprophet420]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air.


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG,

It was the Engine Core and it was found 2000 feet away. I suggest you do some research before posting something.

911research.wtc7.net...

Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main impact crater by about 2000 feet.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Who's being untruthful here?


I'd say that you are. From the beginning, you were using this to justify your statement that the insulation was 6" thick.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"There's at least 6 inches of solid fireproofing there. More than what I feel we've been lead to believe."

And then I asked-
www.abovetopsecret.com...
6"? Do you mean 1 1/2" x 4 sides?

To which you replied-
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You could be right but: .......would be 6.375-inches.... Unless I'm reading this wrong? Could you point out where ..........

So then I showed you-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

wtc.nist.gov...
"The structural steel in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was protected against the effects of fire with
sprayed fire-resistive materials (SFRMs) or rigid fire-rated gypsum panels."

And you thanked me-
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thanks for that.It's pretty confusing........

And then you tried to assert again that maybe the columns had 6"of insulation, even though you knwo it's a dead load calc only, and not a spec sheet-
the above statement contradicts what you said previously....maybe they just added all materials when considering the dead load

So at this point I had to show you about the fire rating that 6" of insulation would give, and the ridiculousness of that-
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well, consider that 2 3/16" of spray on gives a 4 hr fire rating.
If it had ALL of those "layered" on the columns - 6" thickness - , the fire rating would be something like 15 hrs+.

At which point you kinda conceded, but still cling to your previous statement, STILL trying to support your claim of 6".
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I'd say you're probably correct. I agree that you've narrowed it down a little.


At which point I just gave up, because I realized that regardless of your PE status, the fact that I had to lead you through the process told me that you weren't being honest about the facts. You should know how to read this stuff.

Let's just hope that you don't start making cardboard box models of the towers like the guy to the left......



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I would recommend everyone, most especially, Truthers, read Nicholas Taleb's book, "The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable.."

An excerpt from his article in The New York Times: Learning to expect the unexpected.


The 9/11 commission has drawn more attention for the testimony it has gathered than for the purpose it has set for itself....The commission itself, with its mandate, may have compromised its report before it is even delivered. That mandate is "to provide a 'full and complete accounting' of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future."

It sounds uncontroversial, reasonable, even admirable, yet it contains at least three flaws that are common to most such inquiries into past events. To recognize those flaws, it is necessary to understand the concept of the "black swan."

A black swan is an outlier, an event that lies beyond the realm of normal expectations. Most people expect all swans to be white because that's what their experience tells them; a black swan is by definition a surprise. Nevertheless, people tend to concoct explanations for them after the fact, which makes them appear more predictable, and less random, than they are. Our minds are designed to retain, for efficient storage, past information that fits into a compressed narrative. This distortion, called the hindsight bias, prevents us from adequately learning from the past.


Read the whole thing.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 





It was the Engine Core and it was found 2000 feet away. I suggest you do some research before posting something.


I do research - unlike others on this site I don't get my information
from idiotic conspiracy pages......




Roving Engine

Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
I do research - unlike others on this site I don't get my information
from idiotic conspiracy pages......


The site i posted from is not a conspiracy site (you would know this if you did any actual research). What site did you get your information from?

Still waiting for any actual information or physical evidence that supports the offical story conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Thanks my friend for posting this interesting information. However, could you (if you have not already been asked to do so) ask your friend to figure out why there was no resistence from the 80+ intact floors below each impact zone? This is the question I have been seeking a legitimate answer to for quite a few years now.

I have a little bit of experience in doing the math (a long time ago in my structural engineering class for my CAD degree along with some structural design). It still doesn't make any sense to me how the top of the first tower to go would tilt to one side and then straighten up and fall straight down with zero resistence. To me, my engineers mind says that the top would have continued to fall in the direction of the tilt and the resistence from the intact structure below would 'force' it to fall right off. Even the math in this post that I am replying to would support that.

These calculations are only for the impact zone. Not the hundreds of thousand of tons of undamaged steel below it.




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join