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.

 

AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 11
133
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I started out as a 'truther' . My first reaction upon hearing the live coverage of the events that day was that there was no way in hell that 19 individuals could have pulled this off against the most powerful nation on the planet .

I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .

Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .

With that in mind , please don't assume that I am just a blind follower of the 'OS' .

I have posted links time after time proving some of the theories to be questionable and even false in some cases .

But , you know what ? Truthers ignore what I post and very rarely do they even respond to the information I put forth . I think I may even have a link posted in this thread that hasn't received one single response .

Seems to me that if something is posted that can't be denied , then the best way that truthers can deal with it is to simply ignore it .

Engines WERE found at the Pentagon that matched AA77.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .
Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC.
Passenger I.D. WAS found at WTC .
WTC7 WAS damaged and burning .
It WAS possible to fly the plane into the Pentagon , regardless of 'ground-effect' .
The angled cuts at WTC WERE made by cutting torches during clean-up .

All of the above has been proven , so why do truthers ignore it when I post sources to validate these ?

These are FACTS that cannot be disputed but , when I challenge the false theories being posted , I am totally ignored . Then the same false theories get posted again in another thread . Over and over and over .

I am not against a new investigation . I have no problem with that . I have a problem with lies and theories being perpetually posted while ignoring the truth that is already available .

When I present anyone with evidence that proves their claims to be false and , they methodically ignore the truth that I offer them , I can only have contempt for such an individual .

What really ticks me off about those who ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is shown to them is that they have the nerve to call themselves a Truther .

So , if you make a post saying that the sky is falling and I reply with a post proving to you that the sky is not falling , and then you continue to say that the sky is falling , then you fit the criteria of disinformation .

[edit on 21-8-2010 by okbmd]

Hi okbmd,
It kinda cuts both ways as I see it. The trouble is that some people, especially around this forum want to pigeonhole others into tribal like groupings like OS'ers or Truthers, and that there is only one real story either way. One way of looking at things is to ask yourself, can I believe everything I read in a newspaper? the answer to that is certainly no! There is also the matter of the dusts from all the collapses including asbestos, (not just from fireproofing) and other matter and the all too hasty clean-up that was allowed. And when I say other matter, you name it! For instance, both Gorman and Nutter to prove their points, talked about the plane being "powderised" If you believe that, then you have Aluminium as an added toxin in the overall dust, along with the Gypsum board, Asphalt tiles, (if they were used) Concrete, the vinyls, plaster, heavy metals. The freed Asbestos alone is deadly. The playdown of the cleanup is a pointer to the government of the days' dishonesty, and everything else is entitled to be taken with a pinch of salt.




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


I could speculate and offer several probabilities .

But somehow , I'm thinking that you might have an answer that you are willing to give me so , go ahead .

Can you prove to me that any of the statements I put forth in my previous post are not factual ? If so , please prove me wrong .



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
A few pages back I showed what I am talking about. How quickly you all forget.

Simulations that anybody can run show that it can all happen on its own.


Simulations based on what parameters?

The ones that NIST supposedly based on actual structural documentation but never released to the public?

The ones that civilians tried to piece back together using publicly available information, and assuming all the variables that were missing?

Are you even informed enough to be able to tell the difference? (Apparently not.)

A tenured structural engineer that worked with FEMA and the early investigators ran simulations for years and was forced to come to the conclusion that the "official theory" was WRONG, and he came out with a press statement which was published by the AP. His name is Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl. He said he not only modeled the WTC but other NYC skyscrapers and found ALL of them could generally withstand both the planes and fires in his simulations. Look up the article and read it. He's not a "truther" either but the ASCE and AP never followed up on the story. You don't like rocking boats do you? Neither do your sorry federal pig apologists.

I guess he doesn't count because he's a structural engineer, who was on the "official" investigating teams, and he was unable to reproduce their work. He could only contradict it. And he was very honest about it. I'm already expecting you not to be, and to just hand-wave this away just like you do everything else..... Going to prove me right?



How many knives get made naturally? Quite a lot. Take a stroll down to a river in the western US. You'll find sharp rocks everywhere.


So now a "sharp rock" is a knife, so therefore drywall-thermite can form naturally. I guess you ARE the conspiracy theorist, and you're a bigger tin-foiler than all of us. It's funny because when I look up "knife" in the dictionary I don't suppose I'll find anything at all about sharp rocks, but that's not even addressing the massive logical fallacy that a "sharp rock" and drywall-thermite are not the same thing and have no bearing on each other anyway.

You still haven't shown the thermite the guy in your videos is MAKING to be naturally-occurring. Just like cakes aren't naturally-occurring. At least not the ones I know of, and I'm not worried about any "sharp rock" equivalent of wild yeast growing on grain stalks either because that doesn't make a cake, and aluminum panels and drywall don't naturally make thermite. Sorry about that, but someone needs to tell you. When you have to make up new natural "science" for 9/11 based on nothing but YouTube videos of something completely different, maybe you should reconsider what standards of reasoning you think you're using. Compare them to what you demand of others, for a good start.

The rest of your rant makes me think you're running awfully low on actual facts and reasoning. When I bring you to a general rant about how conspiracy theories are stupid then that's your white flag to me. A 4-year-old can rant. It'd be more difficult for a 4-year-old to show that drywall and aluminum naturally make an incendiary that can eat through steel, and it's escaped everyone's attention for years despite millions of buildings using the same materials for decades.

All that ranting but you can't see your own faults, that you have none of the proof you demand of others, and are at LEAST a hypocrite, more likely just outright wrong because you dismiss legitimate evidence to favor these YouTube flights of imagination.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Simulations based on physics. What other parameters do you need? Physics don't change on Earth.

NIST used CPU government super computers nearly a decade ago. A lot's changed in 10 years. Today anybody can buy a $50 programs and run GPU simulators on a $2000 home computer.

In case you don't get it. Home GPUs are multitudes better than Super Computer CPUs. In fact as we speak GPU supercomputers are being built to explode the research front with new simulations worth of simulating small matrixes of reality

Apparently I have to post them again. Well here you go.


Originally posted by Gorman91











[edit on 19-8-2010 by Gorman91]




Originally posted by Gorman91
Jet fuel fires were at 750–800°C.

This is hot enough to extract surfer from gypsum.


www.ehow.com...



Heat the gypsum in a kiln to 600 to 900 degrees C in the presence of a reducing atmosphere such as hydrogen or carbon monoxide to produce calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide. Using hydrogen, for example, Read more: How to Extract Sulfur From Gypsum | eHow.com www.ehow.com...





Please refrain from posting lies without first looking up the truth.



Welcome to the 21st century. It's safer here.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I have said all along that neither side knows all the facts nor have all the answers .

Just because I dispute theories that haven't been proven while at the same time providing proof that parts of the 'OS' are indeed true and other parts can be shown to be credible does not mean that I believe everything I have read or heard .

You can only put a puzzle together one piece at a time . Trying to make pieces fit that are clearly not a part of the puzzle you are working on is futile and is nothing but a hindrance to everyone working on the puzzle .

If the pieces don't belong , why insist on making them fit anyway ?

And thanks for being civil in your reply to my post .



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .


Of-course it is impossible to prove an alternative theory such as the controlled demolition theory without a thorough independent investigation. Disproving the official story is rather easy however.


Seems to me that if something is posted that can't be denied , then the best way that truthers can deal with it is to simply ignore it .

Engines WERE found at the Pentagon that matched AA77.


Not impossible to obtain a matching engine, but I don't feel it is a very major point which proves anything either way. It could be the real deal and still an inside job.


Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .


Yet MOST of the rest of the plane was not. The wings were pretty strong, what happened to them? Maybe the security footage could shed some light. Oh wait...


Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC.


I don't think many truthers go for the holographic plane theory.


Passenger I.D. WAS found at WTC .


Amazing isn't it? That hijackers passports and the like were able to survive the explosions and fires that were so hot that molten metal poured from the towers. They then miraculously were able to survive the collapse which pulverized MOST of the concrete the towers were made up of. The towers should have been built out of whatever they make passports from.


WTC7 WAS damaged and burning .


WTC7 had a few relatively small isolated pockets of fire, which led to another miracle, the first steel structure ever to experience global collapse due to fire.

The damage to WTC7 was also insignificant. If it was significant then surely it would have affected the collapse. The damage was all on one side of the building, yet the structure shrugged this off and continued to collapse perfectly symmetrically into its own footprint. Maybe another miracle? If the damage was significant the damaged side would have behaved much differently from the undamaged side during collapse.


It WAS possible to fly the plane into the Pentagon , regardless of 'ground-effect' .


That's debatable. I'd love to see a video of a passenger aircraft flying at 500MPH within 20ft of the ground for about a mile or any other proof you have (not for an aircraft with high wing-loading). The miracle though, is that a trainee pilot who was incompetent flying a Cessna was able to not only navigate to the pentagon, but perform the spectacular maneuvers to hit his target, one of them being flying at ~20ft at 500MPH for about a mile. Another miracle was that the trainee pilot decided not to impact the most densely occupied wing from the side he approached from, instead maneuvering around to impact the least occupied wing which was undergoing renovations. That the plane was able to make it to the pentagon at all without being shot down due to all the available intercepting fighter jets out of the area on similar training exercises (and delays in orders) was another miracle.

It's also interesting that on the 7/7 London bombings similar terrorist training exercises were happening that morning which added further confusion. Both 7/7 and 9/11, what are the odds eh? Another miracle.


The angled cuts at WTC WERE made by cutting torches during clean-up .


Plausible.


What really ticks me off about those who ignore and refuse to acknowledge the truth when it is shown to them is that they have the nerve to call themselves a Truther .


It's happening on both camps, it's a common human reaction when presented with information which contradicts a persons beliefs, the brain pretty much filters and discards the information. I try not to do this, as I am more interested in the truth than reinforcing my beliefs.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Seems to me that you are now becomning open minded.

Originally posted by okbmd
I started out as a 'truther' . My first reaction upon hearing the live coverage of the events that day was that there was no way in hell that 19 individuals could have pulled this off against the most powerful nation on the planet .


I still consider myself a "truther". But, I will not and can not align myself with most of the theories that "truthers" come up with.


I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .


It seems to me that you have actually become more open minded.



Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .


The only poblem is the OS has not been proven either.


With that in mind , please don't assume that I am just a blind follower of the 'OS' .


I don't think many of us are. But the die hard "truthers" out here will try and make you look like one.


But , you know what ? Truthers ignore what I post and very rarely do they even respond to the information I put forth . I think I may even have a link posted in this thread that hasn't received one single response .


Join the club my friend. If you don't believe with full force that the US gov. initiated 9/11, thn you are a gov. agent. Sad really.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
The question nobody answers(besides "truthers")and they keep dodging is,what pulverized the concrete?

Let's see the experiment for that!

We all know it wasn't the floors above because they exploded outward to dust,that means there was no pressure from the above floors so what pulverized the concrete?


Please. If you can not comprehend a tower collapsing upon itself and creating pulverized concrete, then there is really no hope for you. Not to be a dick.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Simulations based on what parameters?



Originally posted by Gorman91
Simulations based on physics. What other parameters do you need? Physics don't change on Earth.


I'm sorry but I'm going to need a more intelligent response here.

The thicknesses of the columns and beams change. Their strengths therefore change. The geometrical arrangement makes physical differences. The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core. There were millions of pieces to that building and they were not all determined by laws of physics. They were determined by the engineers who designed them.

If you don't even know what a simulation parameter is, and how it differs from the general word "physics," then you really don't need to be arguing with people about it in the first place sir. That is the nice way of saying it.



NIST used CPU government super computers nearly a decade ago.


And never released the parameters for public scrutiny or peer-review. This is known as junk science. All filler, no meat. Now you just showed me you don't even know what a simulation parameter is or why they would be important to know. Enough said.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by smurfy
 


I have said all along that neither side knows all the facts nor have all the answers .

Just because I dispute theories that haven't been proven while at the same time providing proof that parts of the 'OS' are indeed true and other parts can be shown to be credible does not mean that I believe everything I have read or heard .

You can only put a puzzle together one piece at a time . Trying to make pieces fit that are clearly not a part of the puzzle you are working on is futile and is nothing but a hindrance to everyone working on the puzzle .

If the pieces don't belong , why insist on making them fit anyway ?

And thanks for being civil in your reply to my post .

No problem,
I do think asking questions goes some way, sometimes you get answers you already know, sometimes you get attacked for just asking questions. There is one thing though when you mention about making things fit. About the Pentagon 'plane, it surely was on the ground, or as near as makes no difference, however the official cartoon video shows the 'plane coming in at different direction that some witnesses have stated with positiveness,
www.youtube.com...
on the face of it there is no way you can make their ID fit with the official simulation taken from, I presume the FDR, so there you have two pieces of the same puzzle that don't fit. It could be someone telling porkies, or it could be that there was another 'plane flying low at the same time as the Pentagon 'plane,
www.youtube.com...

So, either both parties are right, which can only mean another aircraft, or one of the parties is telling porkies, although both parties stories are compelling, and their is also pictorial evidence in the simulation link, so what do you go for? or do you allow for the pinch of salt.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Program the physics right. That's all you need. You're working off the description of a simulator a decade ago. Things have changes.

Also, the twin towers were a modernist glass box monstrosity. Like all modernist buildings, they share the same fact of life. They don't last.


You're knit picking in the face of obvious destruction of this silly conspiracy theory.

The government knew something like this was happening. Thanks to bureaucratic horror the people who cared never knew. The events that followed were taken advantage of by a lame duck presidency that was desperate to look good. They failed. That's the facts here. The twin towers were modernist monstrosities that are gone for good now for all their glass box nonsense. To think anything like that could survive what it did is a spit in the face of science.

Welcome to 2010. I invite you to replicate these simulators if you dare. Otherwise you're working off obsolete technology and obsolete methods of simulating.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


And again: Why are we talking about collapse initiation when the original OP was about the 2 pieces of steel found that were corroded?

Muddying the waters much?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



I held that view for several years . I searched it and researched it but , my pre-conceived opinions kept me locked into 'inside-job' theories .

Eventually , I realized that none of those theories had been sufficiently proven to the point of showing facts and solid evidence .


I ran out of characters on my previous post but I am curious as to what you thought/think of the very large accelerations undertaken by all three buildings which collapsed on 9/11. IMO this is the biggest proof of an inside job.

For WTC7 to collapse at near free fall, the structure has to provide virtually no resistance to the falling mass, almost to the equivalent of it not being there.

In the towers the OS claims the falling top sections crushed down on the rest of the towers. This occurred at about 2/3rds free fall. In the later part of the "Physics of 9/11" thread I posted a derivation proving that if this were the case, the undamaged structure below the impact zone would have needed to provide a smaller upwards reactional force on the top section than when the top section was stationary, else the top section would have decelerated and not accelerated constantly and uniformly. No debunker has yet been able to find any errors in my calculations or method.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The thicknesses of the columns and beams change. Their strengths therefore change.


Actually, the strenght of the columns didn't change as you go up other than more strength. As they went up, the columns remained the same size but stronger steel was used. You don't need 3-inch columns at the top like you did at the bottom.


The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.


What? No they didn't. And no they don't in every single building out there.


There were millions of pieces to that building and they were not all determined by laws of physics. They were determined by the engineers who designed them.


I'm sorry but you give WAY too much credit to engineers. I'm a structural engineer and even a forensic engineer. Do you just take my word for it? I hope not.


And never released the parameters for public scrutiny or peer-review.


Yo are right. Which is one of the reasons I am VERY vocal about this situation.


This is known as junk science. All filler, no meat. Now you just showed me you don't even know what a simulation parameter is or why they would be important to know. Enough said.


Actually, most of you don't know what is in a computer simulation and how the International Building Code states that ALL computer perameters shall be given up when submitting your analysis. So, on that front, NIST isn't even complying with the international building codes[IBC] (which is quite bad).

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Program the physics right. That's all you need. You're working off the description of a simulator a decade ago. Things have changes.


Hey. "Gorman." Hello!

Are you sure you don't want to call it a night yet?

You are making less and less sense, and your grammatical errors and typos keep mounting to where I'm having a hard time trying to decide which is becoming more annoying.


I ask what parameters the structure being modeled is based on and you say "physics." Then I explain that engineers design buildings, based on physics. Physics doesn't automatically churn out buildings. Maybe you come from a land where "physics" means "magic" and it's a vague one-word answer for everything. Where I come from, I've had actually had physics and computer modeling education and your BS meter is through the roof.

So in the 10 years since's NIST's simulation, humans no longer need to set parameters. I guess you just tell the program what you're trying to simulate and it does everything automatically. Are you sure you didn't just pass out in front of the TV watching the Jetsons?

Okay, model my house. That's all the information you get. It's my house. The parameters? Physics. That's all you need isn't it, according to you? Well let me know when you finish modeling and we'll discuss why it was impossible for you with such a lack of additional information about the structure.



Also, the twin towers were a modernist glass box monstrosity. Like all modernist buildings, they share the same fact of life. They don't last.


The way you keep bringing up the glass, are you going to start saying that the glass was critical to the integrity of the structure next? I would hardly be surprised at this point.

Look up what a parameter is, in regards to simulation, please, for the love of god. They are still used. The fact that no other "debunker" is jumping on you for saying this is only more evidence that the word is just an empty shell here.



Welcome to 2010. I invite you to replicate these simulators if you dare. Otherwise you're working off obsolete technology and obsolete methods of simulating.


My problem is that when I have simulation software, it actually asks me to input data. Imagine that. No, really, be careful, but think about this for a second. According to you all I should have to do is "program the physics right."
The laws of physics are already understood by the program. What you have to "program" is the PARAMETERS of the structure you are modeling. Material strengths, sizes, all of that. You have no idea what I'm talking about do you?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
And again: Why are we talking about collapse initiation when the original OP was about the 2 pieces of steel found that were corroded?

Muddying the waters much?


No sir. My last post said nothing about collapse initiation. AGAIN.

You have no proof of it being able to happen on its own, PERIOD.

Just because the towers made a mess when they fell down doesn't excuse you from all scientific accountability when fantasizing to yourself. You still have to recreate the mess and show it to be able to happen on its own.

See the OP as an example of real investigation being done: "AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions"



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Well that's because it's an old simulator. The simulators I use do not need to have data inputed in those terms. You can set the strength of a bond, you can set the weight perhaps. But that still operates under the same physics. You don't need to input that much data that is already known. Here is an Iron bar. This iron bar's parameters were typed in when it was 3d modeled. You don't need to type it in anymore. That's why you're confused

Glass box, not glass. Glass boxes are modernist monstrosities that are basically big dominoes. It's architectural hierarchy.

Grammar errors? Nope. Things change. programs change. Again, welcome to 2010. Stop acting dumb and answer the question. How come the simulations I showed show all to well a structure collapsing into its footprint and in seconds.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
but I am curious as to what you thought/think of the very large accelerations undertaken by all three buildings which collapsed on 9/11. IMO this is the biggest proof of an inside job.


Not to go too far off topic, but, there was NO acceleration of the building collapses. You can measure this IN REAL TIME.


For WTC7 to collapse at near free fall, the structure has to provide virtually no resistance to the falling mass, almost to the equivalent of it not being there.


This is the biggest question for all of us. As it hasn't been proven how it DID happen.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
If you don't even know what a simulation parameter is, and how it differs from the general word "physics," then you really don't need to be arguing with people about it in the first place sir. That is the nice way of saying it.


Originally posted by Gorman91
Program the physics right. That's all you need. You're working off the description of a simulator a decade ago. Things have changes.


/popcorn
This is getting good. I thought VirginiaRisesYetAgain made some very logical and reasonable points which were sadly ignored.


Also, the twin towers were a modernist glass box monstrosity. Like all modernist buildings, they share the same fact of life. They don't last.


I cannot work out why you call the twin towers a glass box every chance you get. There were steel structures with reinforced concrete floor slabs, not some sort of highly fragile glass structures like you are trying to make out. The towers were literally surrounded with dozens of external columns. Do expect tall buildings to have any windows at all?

Do you know what the design life is on a typical modern sky scraper? They do last. I don't know what you have against modern building methods, but structures are now stronger than they have ever been before.







[edit on 21-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
You still have to recreate the mess and show it to be able to happen on its own.


So, how do we do this without physically recreating itourselves? And then you'll just say 'bu, but, but....you didn't recreate an actual 110 story building, blah, blah blah". What more do evidence do you need? It IS possible.



See the OP as an example of real investigation being done: "AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions"


See my post condraticting this AE911engineer. BTW, I am an AE911engineer myself. Go figure huh?




top topics



 
133
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join