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.

 

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 28
79
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


The pictures are cute but you still haven't posted the excerpt for NIST I've been asking you for, for at least 10 pages now.

Even exponent has admitted what I am specifically asking for is not in the WTC7 NIST report. Unless you can extrapolate it from other data in there, I'm not sure you have any hope of answering it anyway. It seems like the only effort you put into this thread is pointless ranting.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


The pictures are cute...


Send me your picture and I'll place you right next to Dylan Avery. As a special favor, I won't charge you.


...but you still haven't posted the excerpt for NIST I've been asking you for, for at least 10 pages now.


We're still waiting for your excerpt where you refute NIST's evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions.

We keep watching you pretend there is something wrong with the NIST report but you can't give us any reason.




[edit on 4-11-2009 by jthomas]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We keep watching you pretend there is something wrong with the NIST report but you can't give us any reason.

You've been in denial about the NIST report's ommission, jthomas. After so many pages of having the obvious thrust in your face, it's not our fault (or loss) that you can't see it.

The NIST report does not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with the same acceleration as g.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Send me your picture and I'll place you right next to Dylan Avery. As a special favor, I won't charge you.


Ha ha...


We're still waiting for your excerpt where you refute NIST's evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions.


There is nothing to refute if you can't produce their evidence to begin with.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

There is nothing to refute if you can't produce their evidence to begin with.


Got it. I'll be sure to let the word's structural engineers and forensic scientists know they should have consulted me instead of NIST for NIST's evidence and conclusions.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
We keep watching you pretend there is something wrong with the NIST report but you can't give us any reason.

You've been in denial about the NIST report's ommission, jthomas. After so many pages of having the obvious thrust in your face, it's not our fault (or loss) that you can't see it.


I simply refer to your sig for the explanation.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is nothing to refute if you can't produce their evidence to begin with.


Got it. I'll be sure to let the word's structural engineers and forensic scientists know they should have consulted me instead of NIST for NIST's evidence and conclusions.


Not you or anyone else has yet to show where NIST answered the question I am asking. Even exponent eventually realized that what I am asking is not in the NIST report. When are you?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I simply refer to your sig for the explanation.

I guess that's all you can manage to do, as you fail to see the ommissions in the NIST report. You have proven, many times, that you can't explain it, which is not surprising as your fundamental understanding of physics is lacking. This has been demonstrated when you interchanged speed for acceleration, a fairly basic error to make.

NIST has not explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with the same acceleration as g. Neither have you.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You keep saying it is "not surprising" but that means absolutely nothing when you say it. Is there a "right" amount of "resistance"? Yes, and it should have been calculated using the buildings' structural documents. Buckled columns can still be taken into account.

I have already explained how complex modelling something like this is, and really that is all I can answer with here. Measuring the amount of resistance is a difficult task in general, so difficult that NIST could not attempt even the simplest analysis with WTC 1 and 2.

What you are asking for is beyond the realm of current simulation, and even if attempted would give answers with such large error margins as to be worthless.

You repeatedly lambast me for just stating my understanding of the situation, and point out that you're looking for "proof". What I want to know is what sort of proof are you looking for? The behaviour of columns after buckling can easily be researched from the available literature, and indeed NIST do a reasonable job of explaining the facts in their paper.

I cannot give you any easy physical demonstration, and I am certainly not qualified to calculate the behaviour with any authority. What other option do I have but to explain the reality of the scenario, and correct any misconceptions (such as the accuracy of NISTs measurements)?


Sounds like more politicizing bullcrap to me. Science is not hard to understand. It's a tool. It's only when you start taking it as a religion, and looking to "experts" like you would look to a pastor, that problems start arising. I have no problem entertaining and discarding all number of theories as more data presents itself, and have no issues confusing theories with reality.

It's just the reality of the situation I am afraid. I find it hard to believe that you have not noticed this divide. Even in this quote you conflate what I mean by theory. For example, the 'germ theory' of disease is "just a theory", but in science a theory means something confirmed by observation, and indeed may well be universally accepted as fact. To the average layman however, 'theory' has a similar meaning to 'hypothesis', and does not require any factual verification. This is the entire basis behind the push for teaching creationism in US schools.

I apologise if this is patronising again, but like I said I want to be as clear as possible in everything.




Are you serious? Not looking at the debris at all is thorough and complete?

NIST had no access to these samples, I don't expect them to do the impossible.


This is an excuse. Just because they had less to go off of doesn't lend any support to their hypothesis.

No, that's certainly reasonable, it doesn't lend any support. However, it is hardly an excuse to say NIST did not do the impossible. Yes, studying WTC7 steel would undoubtedly be better than not studying it, but this steel was removed before NISTs investigation began.


What more needs to be explained about "it doesn't matter"? I can talk JUST about that instant when it was free-falling, and everything I say still applies. It was supposedly doing no work yet it was supposedly "collapsing" (requiring work to be done!) at the same time. That does NOT make sense. You are comparing nothing to a massive steel building that DOES still have supports intact where the "collapse" is happening, and saying the roof line should fall through them in exactly the same amount of time, within the same margin of error.

Of course it does not make sense, because what you have described obviously did not occur. The NIST report agrees with the observed data, that the column damage occured prior to the south roof beginning to collapse. There is a graph posted earlier of column forces, and you can see they sink rapidly towards 0 as the collapse begins.

This is NISTs model at 0.3s after the moment of global collapse initiation. You can see that their model predicts that there are few surviving unfractured columns, and that the horizontal progressive collapsed has damaged approximately a 7 floor area in height.



It is this area the building collapses into rapidly, there is little support and therefore little work is being done. I guess you can argue that even in this state the building would provide more resistance than measured, but as I will explain below, if you are correct, the impossible has already occured.


Do you think that somehow they forgot to apply this basic law?


If you can't produce the evidence that they did then I am going to have to assume yes.
I see that you are arguing a rather different point than I assumed. For the answer to this you will have to refer back to my first paragraph. Measuring this is practically impossible, and even if attempted would never be sufficiently accurate to satsify.


NIST can't even accurately model what the collapse even looked like, let alone tell you what happened on any given floor, yet you expect me to know what was planted on what specific floors if it was a demolition. Yeah, right.

I expect you to have some positive evidence of an alternate theory. If Tezza requires me to list exactly which floors provided the smallest amount of resistance, why is this too much to ask from you? You cannot deflect the evidential requirements by claiming an alternate theory has not met them. That is the point, you must provide stronger and better fitting evidence to support your theory.


Again, you don't need to embrace a new theory right away to realize the one you are looking at is trash.

So why do we not abandon newtonian mechanics? Why do we actually use them everyday? Because they give sufficiently accurate results. NISTs theory is not perfect, it does not perfectly match the observations, nor can we rely on it to provide subsecond accuracy on when columns fail.

However, their theory still matches observations quite well. From a starting point of an undamaged building, their model encompasses the fires, the structural heating, and the failure. To get from an undamaged building to the correct sequence of east penthouse collapse, a delay, west penthouse movement and immediate global collapse is extremely difficult. This is very good evidence to suggest NIST's theory is accurate, and you cannot present anything anywhere near this sort of level of rigour for any alternate theory.

I will avoid debating the exact meaning of 'free-fall', it is ultimately irrelevant. I will move to my main point with my 1300 remaining characters. You depict the only possible reality as being this:

Literally, 8-floors worth of mass and columns and all would have to be COMPLETELY out of the way to allow a free-fall. Not just partially, not with some buckled columns and a ton of intact braces. That translates to work being done, meaning kinetic energy spent, meaning acceleration is NOT 32/ft/s/s. To be clear you have NOT explained how 8 floors worth of building (using your own figure) was instantly gone, out of the way. NIST doesn't claim anything like that happened. They are trying to say the building was still crushing itself the whole way down.

Now, you can't tell me that this is genuinely what you believe happened? Even in a controlled demolition the mass is not removed, only the support, conservation of momentum still applies.

If what you are saying is accurate, we have to start looking to the paranormal for explanations, because there is no rational mechanism for anything like this to occur. I don't believe that you actually do think this, I think you were trying to illustrate a point. But in doing so you have pointed out the real dichotomy here.

If you don't believe this is accurate, I would appreciate a quick list of what you consider to be credible alternative theories.

Thanks!

[edit on 5-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, he did. It was his most recent paper trying to calculate the energy required for the towers to have collapsed the way they did. I swear to god, go look it up for yourself and read it. He does exactly what I just described in that paper, and openly admits it himself. These "scientists" are all going about this stuff ass-backwards.

Unless this is some paper I am unaware of, sensitivity studies were conducted which indicated that the theory worked over a much larger range.

Even so, you post two pictures as 'evidence', except one picture is during the collapse, and one picture is after it and after significant cleanup.

Please, find some way of actually measuring mass, rather than just asserting where it was. Hell there is no known mechanism to move this much mass and I am fairly sure I have graphed the mass distribution of the towers before to show this to you.

Sorry for the short post, forgot this in the previous post.


Originally posted by scott3x
I suggest you google able danger. Heck, even Joe Biden admitted that not everything concerning Able Danger has been revealed. The youtube video of him stating this has since been taken down, but simply googling "able danger" will get you tons of information.

I will check this out thanks, like I said I am not 100% on my answer, I try to stay away from political topics especially.


Originally posted by NIcon
How large can the error of margin be? In my last post yesterday I pointed out where, in the very same video in which they demonstrated the first movements downward of the north face, they were taking measurements accurate to within +- 1.8 inches. That doesn't leave too much room for error.

The post yesterday linked to a measurement using the moire effect, and if I remember correctly it was measuring lateral motion. I do not believe this is applicable to their analysis of the descent of WTC7.

Here's the wikipedia article on it, but if I did look at the wrong portion of your post or something like that please let me know: en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by NIcon
So they find this 32.2, then we're supposed to allow for the "negligible" of air (okay I can buy that), and then we're supposed to allow for at least 17 more "negligibles" for the columns on the north side alone? (not to mention the other 40 external "negligibles")

Check the image I posted of the simulation as global collapse began above. The reason column resistance was negligible is because of the amount of damage sustained by horizontal progression.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I'm about to go to bed so I'll respond to your post tomorrow, but there's something I want to mention before I go to bed.

I've repeatedly noticed in this thread that hours will pass after something is posted and the post will have no stars. Then within literally only a few minutes, that same post will have 4-5 stars. Always at least 4 (I suspect the additional ones are unrelated), for the posts that this pattern applies to. I've seen this time after time on this thread in particular but never mentioned it because, as strange as the behavior seemed to me, I didn't really have any way of demonstrating it and I know how it sounds...

It was 3:50 in the morning (Eastern time) when you posted your first response above. I first viewed it at about 4:10-4:12. That's only a 20-minute window since you've posted it, it's 4 in the morning, and your post already has the 4 stars I keep seeing pop up instantaneously on so many posts on this thread. Your second response was only 9 minutes later, and has 0 stars as of me posting this. So I have a feeling those 4 stars on the first one were done within 9 minutes. I have seen posts also go for hours without a single star, and then suddenly have the same 4 stars within less than a 5-minute window of time. What are the odds, you know? I have to think there is a strong possibility that 1 individual is doing this repeatedly.


The stars really don't mean anything to me anyway, but what in the hell is going on? I find it extremely hard to believe that the same 4 different people keep coming on here and starring posts at exactly the same time, at completely random and within very small windows of time. I don't think you would know anything about it, but I have a feeling that someone else might. It would be pretty pathetic if someone were actually using 4 separate accounts to do this. But I have seen other ATS members stoop to exactly this kind of behavior, and be banned for it, more than once. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this has anything to do with you.


Anyway, I'm going to bed now. I have to be up at 8 in the morning.... >.<

[edit on 5-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The stars really don't mean anything to me anyway, but what in the hell is going on? I find it extremely hard to believe that the same 4 different people keep coming on here and starring posts at exactly the same time, at completely random and within very small windows of time. I don't think you would know anything about it, but I have a feeling that someone else might. It would be pretty pathetic if someone were actually using 4 separate accounts to do this. But I have seen other ATS members stoop to exactly this kind of behavior, and be banned for it, more than once. Just to be clear, I'm not saying this has anything to do with you.


Yeah I have to say I have noticed this too. Typically I expect to get a single star or two at max. It's not really surprising as this is a site primarily for conspiracy theories, and so there is a population bias.

However, I have certainly noticed that I seem to have more stars on posts of late, and you're right that it does seem to be a minimum of 4. I never star my own posts (I assume you can, there's a blank star there on my page) and so it is a bit of a mystery to me.

Hopefully moderators will be able to confirm whether this is legitimate or not. Either way though it's the post that matters, not how many people like it.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, he did. It was his most recent paper trying to calculate the energy required for the towers to have collapsed the way they did. I swear to god, go look it up for yourself and read it. He does exactly what I just described in that paper, and openly admits it himself. These "scientists" are all going about this stuff ass-backwards.

Unless this is some paper I am unaware of, sensitivity studies were conducted which indicated that the theory worked over a much larger range.

Even so, you post two pictures as 'evidence', except one picture is during the collapse, and one picture is after it and after significant cleanup.

Please, find some way of actually measuring mass, rather than just asserting where it was. Hell there is no known mechanism to move this much mass and I am fairly sure I have graphed the mass distribution of the towers before to show this to you.



Actually, Bazant told us WHY he used that figure, even though bsbray is correct in saying that AFTER the collapse was finished, that a large % of the building is outside the footprint.

Bazant details how as the rubble came down to the ground level, it would be expected to spread out over the ground.

Kinda like if you were to drop dirt or sand onto the ground from more than just a few feet. It doesn't hold the shape it had while falling, rather, it flattens out and spreads out.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
It seems I've come to the end of NIST's presentation of their modeling of the collapse. The next thing that they show is the much quoted text about the three phases of the collapse, the middle of which was the free fall period.

I was hoping to find their "evidence, methodology, and computer simulations" of this "negligible" resistance, as I think if we could find that it might be able to explain how the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. But I could not find their "evidence" nor their "methodology" nor their "computer simulations" of this time period. Woe is me.



Wow, so a truther actually read it? Big thumbs up for you.
In all seriousness, IIRC, you're the first conspiracy theory believer on ATS to ever have read it. Good for you.

However, you failed to understand what you read. That, or you didn't follow my suggestion and study the effect that long unbraced column lengths have.

A very basic primer : en.wikipedia.org...

"Another bit of information that may be gleaned from this equation is the effect of length on critical load. For a given size column, doubling the unsupported length quarters the allowable load."

In their sims, it shows that from below floor 14,to about floor 5, that once the core columns collapsed - as evidenced by the penthouses falling into the building - that the exterior columns were unbraced over that same distance. Note that the effective length of the unsupported column was not just doubled, it was doubled 3x (to 2x normal, 4x, 8x).

There's more to learn of course, but it'll depend on your mind set. If you decide beforehand that it's impossible for there to be such negligible resistance given to the descending building by such long length columns, then you'll never really absorb what it's all about.

But, it's your life, squander it as you see fit.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Nice sig Joey Canoli
Way to take us back to 3rd grade. Have you ever done anything to be nominated for a Nobel Prize? The Truthers you call dumb were nominated in 2008 by a long list of very non-dumb, highly educated people. www.indybay.org...

"common sense and experience tells us that asymmetrically challenged structures do not collapse symmetrically"

[edit on 5-11-2009 by superleadoverdrive]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is nothing to refute if you can't produce their evidence to begin with.


Got it. I'll be sure to let the word's structural engineers and forensic scientists know they should have consulted me instead of NIST for NIST's evidence and conclusions.


Not you or anyone else has yet to show where NIST answered the question I am asking.


Sorry, that dodge doesn't ever work. You are the one making the claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

Addressed repeatedly. See, for instance:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That means you have to not only deal with all off the implications of claiming "controlled demolition", but you also have to refute the entire body of evidence and conclusions of the NIST report, and explain why the entire industries of structural engineers, architects, forensic scientists, university professors in the relevant subjects, and physicists are not collectively up in arms.

Obviously, you can provide no evidence that there is anything wrong with the NIST report, bsbray11. It's time for you to admit it.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by exponent
 


[quouteThe stars really don't mean anything to me anyway, but what in the hell is going on? I find it extremely hard to believe that the same 4 different people keep coming on here and starring posts at exactly the same time, at completely random and within very small windows of time.


Are you losing confidence in your claim that our "all powerful, all knowing government" that can take seven hours to "explode" WTC 7 under everyone's noses without raising suspicion or being caught can't star our accounts whenever they please?

Don't you still believe ATS is populated with government agents hiding behind phony accounts watching your every move and post. manipulating everything here?

What's the change, bsbray11? Are you actually losing confidence that the "government" has the ability to play mind tricks on you?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Look, I get back to a computer so many hours later and that post still has just the 4 stars that it managed to accumulate within minutes of it being posted at 4 in the morning. Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect something is very wrong with that. Keep watching it and you'll see it probably won't gain many more stars, if any, again, while 4 were given virtually simultaneously.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Are you losing confidence in your claim that our "all powerful, all knowing government" that can take seven hours to "explode" WTC 7 under everyone's noses without raising suspicion or being caught can't star our accounts whenever they please?


Why don't you tell me, jthomas? You sound like you know something about how this could be done that I don't. So how do you do it without having multiple accounts?


Don't you still believe ATS is populated with government agents hiding behind phony accounts watching your every move and post. manipulating everything here?


I never claimed that, actually, or anything remotely similar to that. This isn't a guilty conscience raring its head, is it? I only said I think someone may be using multiple accounts. Which has happened before (albeit not just for starring posts) and has resulting in bannings.


Are you actually losing confidence that the "government" has the ability to play mind tricks on you?


I've never really been concerned with having "mind tricks" played on me. Disinfo tactics are well-known by now and the people who repeatedly use them just come across looking stupid, insofar as people can tell the difference between something that is justified with evidence, and something that is just a run-around and propaganda. When you live in it for so long, and it's already layered on so heavily, it becomes pretty easy to spot, from a mile away. I simply observe things and wait. The government/major corporations/banks are all "in bed" together and all major media is heavily-laden with psychology. I literally watch mainstream media just to learn psychology, NLP and all of that. It's already known that the CIA trained journalists and put them in influential positions in the past, under Project Mockingbird and those sorts of things. And that the Pentagon pays to have people post on the internet to argue with certain people and push certain agendas, that's on record, too. And coincidentally, this is the biggest conspiracy website on the internet. So which websites are these Pentagon resources going to? It really makes me wonder... Anyway, jthomas, if you are an "agent," then you're absolutely horrible at it and should retire like Roark.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I can sum up the heart of our disagreement/misunderstanding without having to go through all of the point-by-point stuff.


What I want NIST, or whatever investigative body to do, is take the building's structural documents, fire data, etc., and construct a theory that is totally self-supported, and verified not by referring back to the acceleration seen in videos (which is essentially circular reasoning), but by referring to their calculations and realistic models that reflect that this is could be expected.

If they could take the building's structure in a model, apply the damage, apply realistic heat fires, and then just see what occurs, instead of trying to force it to conform to what we see in videos, then we would have an independent verification that this is a legitimate thing for fire and debris damage alone to do. As it stands, they constantly refer back to the very same building being investigated to justify changing certain things in their report or adjusting data a certain way to make it better fit. That's not how these kinds of reports are supposed to be done.

Using the same methodology, again, I could come up with any bizarre demolition theory, and so long as I can match what the demolition mechanism is theoretically doing to what you see in the videos (ie 'now this column is blown under the penthouse', 'now all these braces are eaten through by powerful eutectic reactions,' 'now these final columns are cut simultaneously', etc.) then I could come up with a report that is 100% as justified as NIST's. But you would be quick to point out yourself that none of that theory is actually proven by evidence. It is simply a theory. And that is what NIST has done: concocted a theory that superficially matches observations made in videos, and they have not independently verified that these things would be expected through the necessary calculations and models without tampering to make them fit to videos. They have molded data and models to fit with the videos. Not investigated how possible these kinds of events would have been through separate analyses. And in fact they had to invent a "new" phenomena for their theory to make sense, though OF COURSE they didn't reproduce this same "new" event in a lab in any way to verify it. They simply say, "Well, it's the only way we can think of for this to have happened from fire and debris alone, so that must have been what happened."

So, if you can show where they independently verify their theory (and not by using circular reasoning through the whole process of the investigation, constantly referring back to videos of the collapse to re-shape their data), that is what I'm looking for. I'm looking for in-depth structural calculations that determine realistically, based on laws, not videos, how much "resistance" we should have seen. Saying, "Well, the structure didn't provide any resistance, as it obviously seen in the video," well, that is obvious, however it does not make the theory that it happened from fire and debris alone obvious. That has to be separately corroborated. It was not an assumption I would feel comfortable making from the beginning for such a counter-intuitive collapse.

I hope that conveys what my issue is here, what my question is, and why I have so much trouble trying to get that kind of analysis out of a NIST report.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join