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.

 

Do NIST's computer models meet the International Building Codes?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I invited A&E911Truth to participate in this thread....

The Reply from JS:
Quote:
We don't think they do, but don't actually know for sure.
UnQuote"

So where do we go from here..... ?

I think if the models do not meet standards then the person who signed the report is liable for misleading the public and should be held accountible.

09:45AM 11/13/2008 -- FIOA request for computer model data to compare to standard building codes... now if they send me something different than what they showed... ? interestings.. so let wait some more...

[edit on 13-11-2008 by BornPatriot]

[edit on 13-11-2008 by BornPatriot]




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by BornPatriot
 


Thanks for taking up the reins on this one BornPatriot.


Please let us know what the verdict is. In the meantime, I will post it on an engineering board I belong to.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



LMAO.

And troofers wonder why they are unable to figure out what happened on 9/11 when they are so misinformed about the real world that they don't know that a SE "helps" to design a building.....

This is why they are a laughingstock......


Your comments and opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism.

Why do you always ridicule anyone who ask questions?



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

Why do you always ridicule anyone who ask questions?



Why?

Because my hope is that one day, some of "you" will realize just how unaware of the real world you are.

But I ain't holdin' my breath. My expectation is that guys like Tezza will be totally unaffected by the fact that he was unaware of an SE's involvement in designing buildings. Normally, you'd expect this to lead to some sort of self-examination, which just might lead them to understand that they haven't a clue, and hence, that their beliefs are based on a totality of life experiences that have NOT prepared them to be able to understand when "we" explain some facts to them.

This is why it's really a waste of time to point out facts to you guys anymore. You've seen the facts already, but don't have the life experience necessary to know when troofer facts have been refuted thoroughly. it's just as crazy as these guys are to rehash facts with them. They are a lost cause. There is no point in continuing along those lines since they are not aware of their own ignorance.....

Got it?

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Do you really think you are going to 'educate" anyone with an attitude? It is much easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
My expectation is that guys like Tezza will be totally unaffected by the fact that he was unaware of an SE's involvement in designing buildings.


Does this have any relevance to the thread topic? Or are you just trying to smear a member's name around here?

Furthermore, whether SE's or Architects design buildings is irrelevant in the whole scheme of 9/11.

I ask that the smear campaign stops now in my thread. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
My expectation is that guys like Tezza will be totally unaffected by the fact that he was unaware of an SE's involvement in designing buildings.

I bet you wish that was true, Seymour.

I admit, it wasn't one of the most detailed posts that I have typed and I missed your keyword 'help' in the quote, which is why I intended to point out that architects also have a large part in designing buildings. Reading and posting quickly isn't advisable, as keywords are often misread or mistyped. I try not to edit my posts much, unless I see something blatantly wrong with them, I'm happy to let them stand. Don't I wish that I could erase some of my early posts in the UFO thread and even here in the 9/11 thread... what was I thinking back then? Ugh!

Sure, structural engineers help design buildings and components for buildings, I've got no problems with that. In Australia, they're more likely to be called civil engineers. I know a few different engineers, including one old acquaintance who studied civ-eng but when I lost contact with him, he was working for the local council, probably doing roads.

Were WTC 1, 2 and 7 designed solely by structural engineers, Seymour, or with the help of an architect?

Here's your answer, in case you're not sure. WTC 7 was designed by Emery Roth & Sons. Emery Roth was an architect - not a structural engineer. My point still stands, even though I stated it in a clumsy way that made me look stupid. As a structural engineer, Griff would NOT have the sole design responsibility for a building similar to the WTC buildings, there would be architects involved - which was the point I was intending to make.

Next time, I'll be sure to type more than two sentences, ok? I can't have you thinking that I don't know what engineers do, when I used to tutor some of them in their 2nd year studies at University.

Seymour, regarding NISTs computer models, would you consider that the model used to simulate the spread of the fire was accurate? You stated that there was a higher distribution of fuel loads around the alleged collapse point, but you never cited your source. How did you determine that specific input parameter for the computer model?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Do you really think you are going to 'educate" anyone with an attitude? It is much easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar.



Honey's been tried Griff. Perhaps not by me, but there ARE others that have more paitence than I. It does no good. In particular, your exchange with Newton's Bit comes to mind.

He was very respectful and showed you the gaps in your beliefs and methods, etc, etc......... but to an outsider, it did nothing to make you even examine your thoughts on 9/11. At least, I can see none.

But let's face it, I'm not trying to educate you guys anyway. The troof movement is just about dead - now that Bush is gone, all the Bush haters will fade into the woodwork and all that will be left are the few true crazies that will now start accusing Obama of being CFR, PNAC, NWO, etc....

So why should I try to educate anyone? Troofers are ineducable.

And don't forget that once again, I must point out the fact that the "official story" is the accepted story. It is "YOU" that must try to educate US. That means that the burden of supplying the honey is yours, not ours. the burden of proof is yours, otherwise the "os" stands. Even if I choose to not answer any of troofer questions, all that means is that they can claim that they have won an argument on a message board, not that they have furthered their goal to getting a
'new investigation".

On topic, like I said in the other thread, you had no proof that NIST must adhere to the ICC, OR that it even made sense that they should. While I wasn't shy about stating my beliefs about you being wrong, or at the very least had no reason to believe that, other than your beliefs about 9/11 and "the man".... your response was not the most congenial either.

But it's nice to see that you admit that you were wrong. I congratulate your integrity.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Even if I choose to not answer any of troofer questions, all that means is that they can claim that they have won an argument on a message board, not that they have furthered their goal to getting a
'new investigation".

On topic regarding the validity of NIST's computer modelling.

You made a claim that there was a higher distribution of fuel loads around the alleged collapse point. You never supplied evidence for this or proved it in any way.

Is that the same method that NIST used for their input parameters, Seymour? Did they just take a guess, like you did and then expect the computer models to produce reasonable simulations?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 




This is why it's really a waste of time to point out facts to you guys anymore. You've seen the facts already, but don't have the life experience necessary to know when troofer facts have been refuted thoroughly. it's just as crazy as these guys are to rehash facts with them. They are a lost cause. There is no point in continuing along those lines since they are not aware of their own ignorance.....

Got it?




This is why it's really a waste of time to point out facts to you guys anymore.

What facts?



You've seen the facts already,


Again what facts?



but don't have the life experience necessary to know when troofer facts have been refuted thoroughly.


You do not know what someone life experience has taught them.
So stop making false claims!



troofer facts have been refuted thoroughly.


This is a lie, if you feel this is true please elaborate with proof?



it's just as crazy as these guys are to rehash facts with them. They are a lost cause.


Right! Asking question and searching for the truth and forming their opinions on their own findings is a lost cause to you. Just because other people do not agree with you, it does not make it a lost cause.


There is no point in continuing along those lines since they are not aware of their own ignorance.....


Who appointed “you” to tell people how ignorant they are?
You just keep insulting everyone, when are you going to stop your insults?


Got it?


Got what?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

You made a claim that there was a higher distribution of fuel loads around the alleged collapse point. You never supplied evidence for this or proved it in any way.



And you and the several other posters never answered my question - what's in it for me?

Answer that first.

Make it worth my while.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

You do not know what someone life experience has taught them.



Granted, not all can be discerned about someone on a message board. But sometimes, it becomes more apparent once you read the bulk of someone's post's.

For instance, all of your posts contain grammitical errors and misspellings - using "your" instead of "you're", "someone" instead of "someone's", and so on.

That says something.

Also, claims that nukes could have been used, cgi fakery was employed and all the eyewitnesses were hypnotized, holograms..... this also speaks about the grasp on reality that any particular poster that posts about this possibility, has.

So generalities CAN be assumed about any certain poster's intelligence level, or education, or level of mental health.

There's more points I can make, but I'm sure it'll be lost on you....



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
what's in it for me?
Make it worth my while.

Thanks for not trying to support your false claim that there was a higher fuel load at the alleged point of collapse in WTC7.

You have not shown how this was used as an input parameter in NIST's computer model.

Your credibilty suffers when you make false claims about the NIST input parameters for their computer models, Seymour. No one can take you seriously, when you make things up.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
For instance, all of your posts contain grammitical errors and misspellings - using "your" instead of "you're", "someone" instead of "someone's", and so on.

Stop the very silly, off topic, tit-for-tat nonsense about grammar, Seymour.

Should I bold the part where you spelt grammatical incorrectly?

Here's a sentence of your's on this very page:

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
That means that the burden of supplying the honey is yours, not ours. the burden of proof is yours, otherwise the "os" stands.

Should I bold the parts where you neglected to use an apostrophe?
Should I bold the part where you left one space after a period, instead of two?
Should I bold the part where you began a sentence with a lower case letter?

Resorting to grammar (and spelling) attacks is the lowest form of trying to drag a thread off topic. No one types perfectly, not even me. In fact, some people who make spelling and grammar errors are not first language English speakers.

Grow up and return to the topic, Seymour. NISTs computer models - are they satisfactory? Can you prove your false claim about the fuel loads that were used in the computer simulation?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Grow up and return to the topic, Seymour. NISTs computer models - are they satisfactory?

[]


Well gee, if you want to return to the topic, then sure.

Guess you should read Griff's post where he admits that NIST is not expected to use the ICC standards.

What do you have to say about that?

As for the other thing. What's in it for me again?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
As for the other thing. What's in it for me again?

NIST used computer models to simulate the spread of the fires. You claimed that NIST used a higher load of fuel at the alleged point of collapse.

You haven't proven it. It's false. The only thing in it for you is to admit that you made an error and save your credibility.

Denying it makes you look a little foolish, as there was no higher fuel load at the alleged collapse point in WTC7. NIST stated the fuel loads that they used for the computer model simulation in the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

The only thing in it for you is to admit that you made an error and save your credibility.

Denying it makes you look a little foolish, as there was no higher fuel load at the alleged collapse point in WTC7. NIST stated the fuel loads that they used for the computer model simulation in the NIST report.


So what's your thoughts about Griff seemingly admitting that NIST isn't expected to use the ICC standards again?

So you're saying that NIST DOESN'T state that there were higher than average paper loads on 12 and 13?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So you're saying that NIST DOESN'T state that there were higher than average paper loads on 12 and 13?

Yes NIST does state that, I've read the report. ThroatYogurt once argued that the error in the NIST report (where they incorrectly mixed up area and volume units for the fuel loads) was correct. He at least admitted to his mistake after I showed him why he was wrong.

However, the alleged point of collapse was column 79, not floors 12 and 13. Where does NIST state that there was higher fuel loads around column 79?

That's what you stated, remember, Seymour?

[edit on 15-11-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
It does no good. In particular, your exchange with Newton's Bit comes to mind.

He was very respectful and showed you the gaps in your beliefs and methods, etc, etc......... but to an outsider, it did nothing to make you even examine your thoughts on 9/11. At least, I can see none.


That's because like NIST, Newton's Bit assumed an awful lot for his scenario to work.

If you had followed along in my calculations, I showed that without this magical number (600C), the calculations fail. And NIST nor Newton's Bit can prove that the exterior columns were 600C.


now that Bush is gone, all the Bush haters will fade into the woodwork and all that will be left are the few true crazies that will now start accusing Obama of being CFR, PNAC, NWO, etc....


So, I guess I'm a cwazy twoofer then?


So why should I try to educate anyone? Troofers are ineducable.


So, basically, you're here only to argue and stroke your ego? What's the point then?

[edit on 11/15/2008 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join