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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mason mike
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.

Except that's the whole problem.

The 80+ videos exist all right, but they won't show any big plane hitting, because no big plane hit.

Like Rumsfeld admitted in a Freudian slip, it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
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."


How is this statement untruthful? As it states in the handwritten documents by Skilling's firm that the fireproofing for the core included all these things.


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 ..........


Nice attempt with the ...... to misconstrue what I was saying. But read on. Remember we are talking about CORE COLUMNS (for the reading impaired). Since the Title of the paper I quoted was: CRITERIA FOR DESIGN FLOOR INSIDE OF CORE UNIT DEAD LOAD



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."


Wow, you showed me PERIMETER COLUMNS.

That's funny because right here they state:


3.4.3 Core Columns

Core columns were protected with fire-rated gypsum wallboard, sprayed fire-resistive material, or a combination of these. Core columns located in rentable and public spaces, in closets, and mechanical
shafts were enclosed typically with two layers of ½ in. gypsum wallboard and were inaccessible for inspection. The extent of gypsum enclosure around a core column varied depending on the location of the column within the core (see NCSTAR 1-6). In all cases, however, sprayed fire-resistive material was applied on those faces that were not in direct contact with the gypsum enclosure. Again, the selected sprayed fire-resistive material was CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD Type D.
Columns located at the elevator shafts were the only columns in the core that were not enclosed and thus were accessible for routine inspections. The columns located at the elevator shafts were protected originally with CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD Type D., but other materials were used when dislodged thermal insulation was reapplied (see Chapter 4).


wtc.nist.gov...

Notice the "gypsum enclosure"? And let's reiterate that "Columns located at the elevator shafts were the only columns in the core that were not enclosed and thus were accessible for routine inspections."

And the rest of your rant is just that. You still haven't proven that there wasn't 6-inches of fireproofing on at least some of the columns.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dariousg
 


Hi Dariousg,

Please feel free to e-mail Mr. Mackey with your questions here:

rmackey_email@earthlink.net

I assure you, he is a great guy and willing to assist anyone with questions.

Thanks and good luck in your search!

:TY:



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM...

Yep, looks like he gets his "FACTS" from the renowned yellow journalism purveyors Hearst Corporation, publisher of the scholarly Popular Mechanics and their "senior researcher" Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of dual Israeli-American citizen and DHS head Michael Chertoff.

Personally, I'd put more stock in the "idiot conspiracy sites."



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Personally, I'd put more stock in the "idiot conspiracy sites."


Well too bad i also use professional and government research sites to support my post, unlike people that believe the official story that cannot post anythign to support the official story.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Exactly my point.

This guy rails against "idiotic conspiracy sites", then posts information from Popular Mechanics!

If you want real science and analysis by physicists, architects, engineers and professional pilots, go to sites like physics911.net..., www.ae911truth.org... or www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 8-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-How is this statement untruthful? As it states in the handwritten documents by Skilling's firm that the fireproofing for the core included all these things.

2-Wow, you showed me PERIMETER COLUMNS.

3-That's funny because right here they state:


3.4.3 Core Columns

Core columns were protected with fire-rated gypsum wallboard, sprayed fire-resistive material, or a combination of these. Core columns located in rentable and public spaces, in closets, and mechanical
shafts were enclosed typically with two layers of ½ in. gypsum wallboard and were inaccessible for inspection. The extent of gypsum enclosure around a core column varied depending on the location of the column within the core (see NCSTAR 1-6). In all cases, however, sprayed fire-resistive material was applied on those faces that were not in direct contact with the gypsum enclosure. Again, the selected sprayed fire-resistive material was CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD Type D.
Columns located at the elevator shafts were the only columns in the core that were not enclosed and thus were accessible for routine inspections. The columns located at the elevator shafts were protected originally with CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD Type D., but other materials were used when dislodged thermal insulation was reapplied (see Chapter 4).


wtc.nist.gov...

4-And the rest of your rant is just that. You still haven't proven that there wasn't 6-inches of fireproofing on at least some of the columns.


1-yes, they included these things. And it was used as a dead load calc, NOT as a spec sheet. I'd think that this would be obvious to you, since that whole chapter of the NIST where you got your photo deals with design criteria. Later on in this post,you've found the correct chapter that deals with how it was actually applied. Now, why would someone do that? Could it be a typically dishonest attempt to try and back a ridiculous statement that there's 6" of fire insulation? Smells like it to me. Quacks like it. Looks like it. Yep, it's another dishonest attempt at making misleading statements. What a surprise.

2-Another lie.

3-Finally, we get to the relevant part. Do you understand what that means? Aparently not. So let me 'splain it to you Lucy. Take a box column. 2 sides would have drywall, and the other 2 sides would have the spray-on. Or 1 and 3. Or 3 and 1. Or 4 and 0. Or 0 and 4. They didn't have both of them in any case. I suggest that you go read that chapter some more. You just might find out where you're wrong.

4- no, the rest wasn't a rant. It shows just how obtuse and dishonest you can be. You asked me to find some info, so I did and you thanked me for it. And in this post, you've found it yourself. Wow, so once again, you know where to find this stuff but choose not to because you know that it shows you to be incorrect. It's either that or you seriously don't know what you're doing, or have never read the NIST report.

So, have you looked into whether or not it's technologically feasible to determine the source of the sulfur in the "swiss cheesed" steel?

My guess is no. Since once you find out that it's not possible you'll no longer have a reason to rant about NIST regarding this issue, especially now that I've schooled you about your (wrong, again) claim that NIST never talked about it.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
What exactly has NIST proven and HOW did they prove it?

They have proven with only 10,000 pages of paper ,millions of hours of peoples time can be wasted debating a dead subject that everyone has already choosen sides over.

And for my dollar I say September Clues.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
4- no, the rest wasn't a rant. It shows just how obtuse and dishonest you can be.


First of all personal attacks are against the T&C's here.

Second, let's look at the architectural drawings shall we?



Notice the spray-on, cement cant and drywall are all shown in the column detail for column #706? Also notice that it is not just either/or as you are trying to say? As some parts overlap.

BTW, there are many more examples if you care to look at the drawings. Many columns have spray-on FP and are ALSO encased in gypsum drywall.

And before I'm accussed of "cropping" a photo, the original can be found anywhere. Look up "WTC architectural blueprints" and find "24th floor core plan".


You asked me to find some info, so I did and you thanked me for it. And in this post, you've found it yourself. Wow, so once again, you know where to find this stuff but choose not to because you know that it shows you to be incorrect. It's either that or you seriously don't know what you're doing, or have never read the NIST report.


NIST states in their report that the extent of fireproofing is not known.


No information was available about the condition of thermal insulation for the exterior columns and spandrel beams, and little information was available for the core beams and columns.


wtc.nist.gov...

The reason they say "little" was known was because the elevator shafts were open to inspection.


NIST requested that the Port Authority provide available information on the actual thickness of fireresistive material on the exterior and interior columns of the WTC towers. The Port Authority replied that, due to inaccessibility of exterior columns and core columns, there were no records of SFRM thickness measurements for these elements. The only available measurements were for thickness of SFRM that was reapplied to accessible beams and columns within elevator shafts.


wtc.nist.gov...

I expect an apology will not be comming from you. As I have "schooled" you many more times than you have shown me anything in the NIST report and have yet to admit it.


So, have you looked into whether or not it's technologically feasible to determine the source of the sulfur in the "swiss cheesed" steel?


Hmm...Let's see. Take everything that was known to exist in the towers that contained sulfur. Mash it up. Heat it next to steel and see if it evaporates the steel. If it does, take one thing away until it doesn't work anymore. What's so hard with that?


My guess is no. Since once you find out that it's not possible you'll no longer have a reason to rant about NIST regarding this issue, especially now that I've schooled you about your (wrong, again) claim that NIST never talked about it.


So you "schooled" me eh? Yeah, NIST talked about it. Yippy, now we can all relax because they found the cause. Oops, that's not right either is it?



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   


If you want real science and analysis by physicists, architects, engineers and professional pilots, go to sites like physics911.net..., www.ae911truth.org... or www.pilotsfor911truth.org...


Right - idiotic conspiracy sites.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Apparently you don't think a piece of aircraft can break free during
impact and land considerable distance away. Well I've seen it happen
Years ago Lear jet crashed just down street from me as member of
fire department responded to crash scene. Later when walking site
marking body parts for recovery found piece of landing gear 75 yards
away from main impact location. According to your illogic must be
a conspiracy. Piece flew downhill (there's that downhill thing again) and
hit parked car (try explaining that to insurance company) otherwise
would have continued much farther.

Thats why dont beleive much is video's and twisted facts presented by
the conpiracy loon web pages .



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



If you want real science and analysis by physicists, architects, engineers and professional pilots, go to sites like physics911.net..., www.ae911truth.org... or www.pilotsfor911truth.org...


Right - idiotic conspiracy sites.

Where are the physicists, architects, engineers and professional pilot's websites that are defending the government's ludicrous '19 Arabs' conspiracy theory?

That's right, they don't exist.

Keep posting phony information from Popular Mechanics,
Michael Chertoff's cousin
and government debunking sites.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Apparently you don't think a piece of aircraft can break free during
impact and land considerable distance away. Well I've seen it happen
Years ago Lear jet crashed just down street from me as member of
fire department responded to crash scene. Later when walking site
marking body parts for recovery found piece of landing gear 75 yards
away from main impact location.


1. Did the aircraft crash straight down into the ground as flight 93 was supposed to have?

2. There is a big difference between a piece of landing gear and an engine core.

3. What training in aircraft, specifically aircraft fire fighting and crash recovery have you had?



[edit on 10-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join