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.

 

letter to NIST

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by dariousg

It doesn't matter my friend. I have said the same thing along with MANY others over and over and over. The one's that have faith in the 'official story' will not answer this. They will give you simple one liners or come back with a stupid question about your expertise in demolition and so on.


It doesn't matter to you that our friend has simply made an unsubstantiated assertion with no facts to back it up.

But that is the nature of you believers in the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale."

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jthomas]


You see, you did exactly what I told everyone you would do. First you simply come right back at us with the 'no facts to back it up' line when you have yet to present ANY FACTS to show that it would create a uniform and complete collapse of this building along with the towers.

My facts come from common sense, logical reasoning, research, architectual experience, CAD experience and general life experience. I have witnessed a few live demo's in my time and have seen some pretty nasty fires. The only problem is this. Of all of the skyscraper fires we have seen there are zero that have ever collapsed. Some of the fires went on for many more hours than this one.

Don't try to go with the 'different circumstances' or 'they had sprinkler systems' excuse either. Many of those fully engulfed fires had flames shooting out of every window for 5 plus floors for hours. Nothing CLOSE to what was going on in WTC 7. You think the sprinklers were on in those fires? When they were blazing away and fully engulfing all of those floors? Yeah. Sure.

Did they 'thermally expand' to cause a collapse? Nope.

Yes, this building had some damage caused to it by the collapse of the towers. If that did so much damage then why didn't that side collapse first? Oh I know, because column 79 gave way and caused a uniform, demolition style free fall of the entire structure! God, why have I been so dense?!!! I didn't see it before.

And I can guarantee you will NEVER SEE IT HAPPEN AGAIN! Not because of new building codes and such.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by dariousg]




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jimmyx
... if thermal expansion happened, all columns would have had to reach the same temperture, thus expansion, at the same time or you would have seen one side partially collapse, followed by other parts of the columns supporting floors that physically run out horizontally for hundreds of feet, to be pulled down by the first columns, much like in a "wave". [edit on 26-8-2008 by jimmyx]


You're free to back up your assertion but just making an assertion without evidence is just an opinion that doesn't demonstrate anything at all.


to gather the evidence you say i need, you need an independent investigation. that is how any any 1st year scientist, engineer, or lawyer gathers evidence. my "assertion" is from common sense, for i readily agree i am not qualified to pass judgement on any technical aspects of the NIST report. but at the same time those that ARE qualified and happen to disagree with the NIST reports conclusions are not given the forum to ask questions. so my question to you is....why would you NOT want this to happen... it would clear the air...it would instill confidence in our government...it would erase the doubts that thousands of people have already expressed...why is this type of investigation so opposed by you?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by dariousg

It doesn't matter my friend. I have said the same thing along with MANY others over and over and over. The one's that have faith in the 'official story' will not answer this. They will give you simple one liners or come back with a stupid question about your expertise in demolition and so on.


It doesn't matter to you that our friend has simply made an unsubstantiated assertion with no facts to back it up.

But that is the nature of you believers in the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Fairy Tale."

[edit on 26-8-2008 by jthomas]


You see, you did exactly what I told everyone you would do. First you simply come right back at us with the 'no facts to back it up' line when you have yet to present ANY FACTS to show that it would create a uniform and complete collapse of this building along with the towers.


It's quite obvious that all you can do is make claims and assertions. You have presented not a single fact nor bit of evidence to back your up claims.

Neither have you refuted any of the NIST report on WTC 7.

But 9/11 Deniers like you always try to get away with shifting the burden of proof. As you can see, it never works for you.





posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

to gather the evidence you say i need, you need an independent investigation.


NIST did that already. YOU have to refute it if you disagree. Weaseling out of YOUR responsibility does not cut the mustard, my friend.


...i readily agree i am not qualified to pass judgement on any technical aspects of the NIST report....


Then don't make claims you cannot back up.


but at the same time those that ARE qualified and happen to disagree with the NIST reports conclusions are not given the forum to ask questions.


Apparently you have been living in a cave. Architects and engineers have their own forum where they have been making unsupported claims and assertions for awhile now.


so my question to you is....why would you NOT want this to happen...


Because no reason has ever been substantiated for doing any more investigations when NIST has yet to have been shown to be wrong.

You see, you really can't shift the burden of proof from your shoulders. You'd better get to work, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffMaybe I wasn't clear enough? I'm talking about using thermite to sever the connections of the girders to the columns (actually according to NIST only one column is needed). This would be acting in the vertical direction exactly like we see everyday when they weld railroad tracks together in the vertical direction using pottery (terra cotta)...i.e. no evidence left after used. After all, who's going to see bits of terra cotta and scream "conspiracy"?

Well lets be fair, maybe terracotta would not leave any evidence, but the large amounts of clearly melted iron surrounding the end of a failed beam and similar damage on the column's seat would be significant evidence. Also you have to consider pre-attack, I imagine that seeing a hole dug in several inches of concrete as well as the removal of the metal decking and a device (would a single pot melt through an entire beam? It would have to be a large volume) attached to the beam would be extremely suspicious. Nothing of this sort was reported.


NIST's theory is the horizontal bracing of 9 floors "walking" off their connections brought the building down.

It isn't, although you're not far off.


My theory is that the horizontal bracing of 9 floors was severed.

Mine has precedence. NIST had to come up with some "new phenomenon".

Yours does not have precedence, no large scale demolition of this type has ever used Thermite, and while thermite is used to weld tracks together and to destroy equipment, I have yet to see a single test of its reliability or even ability to sever beams efficiently. It's entirely plausible of course but it's not enough to say "it's plausible, therefore it's probable".

Secondly, NIST did not come up with some "new phenomenon", thermal expansion is well known and some structures are designed with this in mind. What NIST said is that no skyscraper is known to have been destroyed by this method before. I don't know if there are examples in buildings under 14 floors but R Mackey pointed out that bridges have collapsed because of this on different occasions.


So tell me. Did NIST or is NIST really taking all credible alternatives into account? I say no because obviously my thermite theory would work.

I don't know if 'obviously' is the right word, yes it's possible your theory would work, but do you have any evidence for it? Is there any evidence at all? In fact how would they even know where to place it?. NIST has only just finished their report identifying this failure mechanism. You cannot simply take NISTs theory, replace any fire effects with thermite effects and claim it is more plausible. Fire occurred, we know it occurred, and we know that it results in thermal expansion. Thermite can only add to the complexity, because there is no evidence for it. Becuase of this reason Occams Razor cannot by definition support your theory.


Just remember. If NIST's theory is true, we all work in deathtraps.

Nobody died in WTC7.


Maybe we should write our congressmen and demand that all government buildings be upgraded as per NIST's suggestions?

Perhaps you should, if you truly believe that thermal expansion over a period of 4 hours makes a building a 'deathtrap' then of course you should. Still at least one Structural Engineer (Newtons Bit) has said he will not be supporting these code revisions, as he believes buildings are already designed sufficiently.


BTW, I'm only 51 pages into the report, and so far, I'd be ashamed to have my name associated with it.

Can you point out some specific problems? Perhaps it would be appropriate to move to another thread, I don't think there are any specific threads on this subject but i'm very much an ATS newbie.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I already told you. They had other evidence. Don't pretend you don't know that.


BUT THEY STILL FAILED TO RECOVER ANY STEEL FOR TESTING.

WHICH MEANS THEY DID NOT DO A PROPER INVESTIGATION AND HAVE A PROPER REPORT.

End of story, now grow up and move on.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
NIST did that already. YOU have to refute it if you disagree.


I have proven NIST failed to recover steel for testing.

Now grow up and move on.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
BUT THEY STILL FAILED TO RECOVER ANY STEEL FOR TESTING.

WHICH MEANS THEY DID NOT DO A PROPER INVESTIGATION AND HAVE A PROPER REPORT.


Then by your standards, nobody can do a proper report. You mentioned FEMA had recovered steel but have not responded as to whether you agree with them or not. FEMAs steel however is other than being from WTC7, unidentified.

How would you propose NIST identify WTC7 steel, considering that it doesn't seem to have been marked, stamped or stencilled in any way?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
FEMAs steel however is other than being from WTC7, unidentified.


You should read the FEMA reports, they did have steel from Building 7 and tested it.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You should read the FEMA reports, they did have steel from Building 7 and tested it.


I have, like I said, they identified it as being part of the WTC7 debris pile and it was selected because of its unusual characteristics. Other than the fact it was from WTC7, there is no information as to what member it was, where it was located, or any other details. We can guess the type of member from the remains, but that is nothing more than a guess.

Do you think the FEMA report implies something suspicious? If so, what exactly? They explain quite well at what temperature this type of corrosion occurs and this is well within the range of fire temperatures?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Always you have me floored with comments that pierce the so called armor of the Bebunkers and the MSM Story,

That is right How can the have done any assessment at all, without any steel!!

I am rotflmao!! its funny how they can lie, change the story around and back themselves into a corner, but the ones that look for the truth have issues!!

its so pathetic.....I wonder how we can ever trust NSIT ever again!



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



Your really trying state your little image with train tracks, is cause by solar heating???

Seriously the enthalpy of steel is 275 joules per gram at 1500 celcius

Now your saying that the sun, has heated that train track to enthalpy?? or close enough for the tracks to warp shape, Heated enough to become malleable, and change shape??

Try again soldier...... seriously try looking into what thermal-dynamics is.....convection, conduction, radiation... and how the effects are plausable in fluid dynamics of earth....




Wow I am impressed every single day by these debunkers and what they call proof, evidence and the likes.

For someone so say that steel ins't needed to show a steel failure scenerio and to stand by that is such insanity!!

Like I said I am truly amazed...
Keep up the crazy show debunkers!

[edit on 26-8-2008 by theability]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
Now your saying that the sun, has heated that train track to enthalpy?? or close enough for the tracks to warp shape, Heated enough to become malleable, and change shape??

Try again soldier...... seriously try looking into what thermal-dynamics is.....convection, conduction, radiation... and how the effects are plausable in fluid dynamics of earth....


Yes? Seriously look it up, steel does not need to be at 1500C to change shape, it is a linear phenomena. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Well lets be fair, maybe terracotta would not leave any evidence, but the large amounts of clearly melted iron surrounding the end of a failed beam and similar damage on the column's seat would be significant evidence. Also you have to consider pre-attack, I imagine that seeing a hole dug in several inches of concrete as well as the removal of the metal decking and a device (would a single pot melt through an entire beam? It would have to be a large volume) attached to the beam would be extremely suspicious. Nothing of this sort was reported.


Have you calculated how much volume of thermite this huge beam would take? Or have you taken into account that beams/girders do not just go magically into a column. There's connections. Usually done with bolts and plates. Tell me: how much would it take to melt the plates/bolts?

Someone posted a photo (I think it's on Judy Woods' site somewhere) that showed something suspicious with a connection. How hard would it really be?



It isn't, although you're not far off.


Can you explain it then? Because from what I've read so far and saw in the video, that was my impression. If I'm incorrect, please show me my error because I really hate walking around saying incorect things. No sarcasm, a real request.


It's entirely plausible of course but it's not enough to say "it's plausible, therefore it's probable".


And yet, you defend NIST?


R Mackey pointed out that bridges have collapsed because of this on different occasions.


Bridges are much different than structures. For one, structures are fireproofed. I'm not saying they would last forever, but I'd image that with all that was going on in that builing, it was heavily reinforced. Just my guess based on experience.


Thermite can only add to the complexity, because there is no evidence for it. Becuase of this reason Occams Razor cannot by definition support your theory.


Only if you believe this new phenomenon of thermal expansion felling buildings.



Can you point out some specific problems? Perhaps it would be appropriate to move to another thread, I don't think there are any specific threads on this subject but i'm very much an ATS newbie.


I'm going to keep my promise and be back in a few with some calcs.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffHave you calculated how much volume of thermite this huge beam would take? Or have you taken into account that beams/girders do not just go magically into a column. There's connections. Usually done with bolts and plates. Tell me: how much would it take to melt the plates/bolts?

I can't give you an answer to these questions, because no real experimentation has been done. I can obviously calculate the ideal conditions, but by doing so i am inducing a bias towards failure, which is not appropriate to prove it could be done easily.

Regardless you have not addressed any of the issues with actually planting and concealing these devices.


Someone posted a photo (I think it's on Judy Woods' site somewhere) that showed something suspicious with a connection. How hard would it really be?

In an ideal world it would not be that hard, but this is far from an ideal world. You have yet to even address how these people would know to target only these connections. Indeed by adopting this theory (a carbon copy of NISTs replacing fire induced failure with thermite induced failure) you implicitly support their theory excepting the single contention of fire induced failure. If this could then be proven to be rigorously modelled, your entire theory must by your own rules collapse. Am I wrong?


Can you explain it then? Because from what I've read so far and saw in the video, that was my impression. If I'm incorrect, please show me my error because I really hate walking around saying incorect things. No sarcasm, a real request.

You're pretty much right, but the initial failure was only two floors, leading to a local progressive collapse. Really you should not read very far into NCSTAR 1A without reading NCSTAR 1-9 and NCSTAR 1-9A, the details you require are in there.


And yet, you defend NIST?

Of course, many alternate explanations are plausible as long as you have a low enough incredulity threshold. Check out Max Photon at JREF, his theory is that small amounts of thermite were placed in perimeter columns (of the WTC) along with some sort of 'thermite shock tube' either inside or replacing the window washing tracks. Despite the complete lack of evidence, this is a plausible theory, as it does not break any physical laws, we have no strict evidence against it, it relies purely on trying to produce the best fit to the evidence, no matter if that fit is identical to the 'official story'. I may well ask you, why do you defend your theory against Max Photons, because both have the same level of evidence as NISTs report, except with the addition of Thermite.


Bridges are much different than structures. For one, structures are fireproofed. I'm not saying they would last forever, but I'd image that with all that was going on in that builing, it was heavily reinforced. Just my guess based on experience.

You are correct, as you read through NCSTAR 1-9 you should discover that NIST ran their full collapse model with fire conditions at 3:30 and 4 hours. The earlier run did not collapse. In fact the temperature of these beams was not excessive, compared to the WTC at least.


Only if you believe this new phenomenon of thermal expansion felling buildings.

Not at all, this is a consequential phenomena, thermal expansion is well known, and I don't think you will disagree if I say that beams expanding and contracting can certainly break connections.


I'm going to keep my promise and be back in a few with some calcs.

No problem, I am here for learning and polite discussion, take your time.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
I already told you. They had other evidence. Don't pretend you don't know that.


BUT THEY STILL FAILED TO RECOVER ANY STEEL FOR TESTING.


Irrelevant. TOTALLY irrelevant.


WHICH MEANS THEY DID NOT DO A PROPER INVESTIGATION AND HAVE A PROPER REPORT.


According to whom? YOU?


You'll never weasel out of that silly claim.


End of story, now grow up and move on.


Your nervousness shows, Ultima1. Once again, you cornered yourself by your own contradictions. And, once gain, I am here to point it out.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jthomas
NIST did that already. YOU have to refute it if you disagree.


I have proven NIST failed to recover steel for testing.


That means absolutely nothing, of course. You've been reduced to muttering by your inability to refute NIST.

Again.




posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability


its so pathetic.....I wonder how we can ever trust NSIT ever again!


The National Society of Ignorant Twoofers?

How could ANYONE trust Twoofers?



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I found something interesting in the NIST report while digging for connections.


Information on the specific connection details used is
unavailable at this time.


wtc.nist.gov...

Now, granted this was June of '04, so they may have found an answer. If anyone knows specifics, I'd be highly grateful. As I was on a roll.



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
OK. Here's what I have so far.

stress = Young's modulus x thermal coefficient of expansion x change in temperature

Also

stress = force/Area

Disclaimer: This only pertains to a W24X55 H-beam (I-beam) as that is the one with the longest span and will, I think, produce the strongest force. I admit, I have yet to calculate the other three W-shapes described by NIST.

wtc.nist.gov...

So, getting back to our equations, I calculated the stress to equal 201,840 pounds per square inch using a thermal expansion coefficient of steel of 12 x 10^-6/K and a change in temperature of 580 K (600C-room temp of 25C)

The area of a W24X55 is 16.2 square inches.

From the stress = force/area equation, we get that the force is equal to 3,269,808 pounds.

Also from NIST I found that the bolts used for connectins were ASTM-325 bolts with a diameter of 0.875 inches. Which I have found have a minimum strength of 150,000 pounds per square inch. The cross-sectional area of a bolt would be 0.601 square inches.

www.dor.state.ne.us...

Disclaimer #2. This is only tensile strength. I haven't looked into shear tearing) yet.

Taking this information we can gather that one single bolt can carry a load of 150,000 x 0.601 = 90,152.31 pounds

From here, I need my steel manual at work to complete some calculations. Also, I need to do a free body diagram once I calculate all the forces acting on the beams and girders that were attached to column 79. Who knows, maybe I'll prove NIST correct? Just a thought.

It sure would be nice to know the connections though.





[edit on 8/26/2008 by Griff]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join