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: 12
133
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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


Exactly. I have a program now called "beam check". It does in a half millisecond what I could do physically in a week.




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


It's a glass box with external columns. That's about right.

Doesn't much matter about the stuff you described. The temperatures and chemicals create thermite and the steel is already bending. That baby is going down.

I live in the town. I never like the towers. All I saw were tetris towers. When they came down I was not surprised.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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.


So you realize the structure itself is a massive variable.

Yet you think software today can recreate an accurate representation of the structures from scratch, with no human input at all?

I asked where are the parameters for NIST's simulations. Someone had to actually put in data you know. For the simulation to work. Or else there would have been no simulation. Those parameters were never released. The complete structural documentation that CEs and SEs use for FA is not there. I have seen many an engineer complain about this. I have seen for myself which variables for the equations are missing, and I have seen for myself government apologists just making up numbers and plugging them in happily instead of ever petitioning NIST to just release the data. You are still stuck back on trying to figure out what a parameter is.



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.


What kind of a knee-jerk response is this? I KNOW you didn't even think or double-check this at all. Just a "What?" and quickly "NOO I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

This is getting really irritable, because not only are you wrong, but you are putting up absolutely no effort at all into this.

From FEMA's report. Chapter 2.

Please follow along.


Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches.


www.fema.gov...

Ohhhhh you just got SLAMMED.


"What? No they didn't."

Yes they did my increasingly confused friend. Yes, they did.

And how do your Jetson-age simulators tell if the WTC Towers had 4 or 5 inches of concrete in a given place, when all you tell them is "physics"?




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.


Oh god no. In fact I wish you had never said that, because my respect for the standard set by the PE has just gone way down.



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.


Very vocal about parameters being unnecessary and all you needing to program is "physics"?

Come on, don't shift under me and pretend like you were saying this the whole time. You just gave me two totally nonsense answers in a row when I asked what parameters these simulations you're talking about were based on.


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).


That's the tip of the iceberg when you're talking about these reports. What NIST did is beyond bad, it's outright criminal. And they're still doing it.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Like I said. The design can be anything you want. The simulated form fell into its footprint and in seconds at the speed of gravity. You have yet to explain this.

Space age Jetsons simulator? Well yea that's kind of why universities are beginning to use it.

www.incgamers.com...




for courses and research projects in game development, 3D graphics, simulation, architecture, animation, film and design.


[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



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


I'm basing my opinion off measurements made in real time. Also NIST admitted WTC7 underwent free fall for a sustained period of time. I'm not sure if you disagree with that or just the towers.

The towers are harder to measure due to the wave of destruction at the top but the bottom of the wave of destruction accelerates at a very uniform rate of about 2/3rds free fall.

So you say there was no acceleration, do you think a constant velocity was maintained or will you go as far as decelerations?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
I cannot work out why you call the twin towers a glass box every chance you get.


Not to speak for Gorman1 but that is exactlywhat they were.


There were steel structures with reinforced concrete floor slabs, not some sort of highly fragile glass structures like you are trying to make out.


When you take the calculations floor by floor, yes they were.


The towers were literally surrounded with dozens of external columns. Do expect tall buildings to have any windows at all?


External olumns have no effect on the internal structure.



Do you know what the design life is on a typical modern sky scraper?


Do you? They were past their prime IMO.


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.


Please take a structural engineering class. Or at least go to Rome. Or to Egypt. Or to South America. Isn't it funny how most modern buildings need to be taken down within 50 years, yet the pyramids have stood for millenia? Yeah, it's Modern Marvels at work huh?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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?


I certainly never gave you that restraint.

The gentleman featured in the OP went about physically recreating the rubble pile, putting all the drywall dust and aluminum and everything else strapped directly onto the steel column and burned at high temperatures for days on end.

How can you prove that this kind of environment will naturally produce your drywall-thermite? By making it happen. How do you do that without physically recreating it? You can't. That's what makes theoretical physics different than applied and material physics.


And then you'll just say 'bu, but, but....you didn't recreate an actual 110 story building, blah, blah blah".


Now you are mistaking me for a "debunker." That's what YOU all do whenever we bring up damages done to other buildings from fires and plane damages, to compare. You always say there is no comparison. I am always up for fair comparisons, meaning everything is taken into account and in context. Again, what the gentleman in the OP did was entirely sufficient for really debunking the drywall-corrosion theory.


What more do evidence do you need? It IS possible.


What more evidence do I need, than you telling me I wouldn't accept your evidence?

Um, how about we start with some evidence?



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


Because you know you don't really know what happened. Neither do I.

I keep asking for evidence and proof. Have you noticed?
You may very well be correct, but it still remains to be demonstrated and there certainly appears to be no case histories. Usually engineers discover these things and it becomes a major technological interest. Like galvanic corrosion. Once that was discovered it quickly became a new topic of education and engineers started going out of their way to avoid it.



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

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Azp420
 


It's a glass box with external columns. That's about right.

Doesn't much matter about the stuff you described. The temperatures and chemicals create thermite and the steel is already bending. That baby is going down.

I live in the town. I never like the towers. All I saw were tetris towers. When they came down I was not surprised.


No that's not about right, the towers can in no way shape or form be accurately describes as "glass boxes".

Wow so thermite was just created? Don't you think engineers might want to know about this phenomenon so they can make their designs safer?


Ah k, so it doesn't matter that the vast majority of the building was undamaged, your intuition and keen eye for an unstable building is all the science and logic you need to have faith in the official version of events.


I chose science and logic.
... And I still believe in God


Makes perfect sense now..



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Like I said. The design can be anything you want. The simulated form fell into its footprint and in seconds at the speed of gravity. You have yet to explain this.


It doesn't even warrant an explanation when the structure you are modeling is NOT a representation of the WTC Towers.

That's why I'm asking what the parameters are based on. Responding with the word "physics" is just pandering to ignorance. You seem like you're finally starting to realize what I mean by parameters but you still haven't let it sink in that your models are WORTHLESS without parameters that accurately reflect the WTC Tower structures.


Space age Jetsons simulator? Well yea that's kind of why universities are beginning to use it.


Simulators that don't require any input from the user? Don't exist. Until computers can read your mind they will continue to not exist.

A few drinks never hurt anyone but when you post under their influence it is pretty common to have lots of typos, grammatical errors, and I suppose statements which make little to no sense. Just an observation I have made. It seems to me like you have 3 different trains of thought going on here, one of them admitting there is data relevant to the structures that you must have, the other seemingly to deny such an idea at the same time. Let me know when you're able to come to a consensus about this with yourself so I can know what state of mind I'm addressing in my responses.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Nope It does make perfect sense now. Want protection? Don't use gypsum. In Jet fuel fire temperatures and the right materials, freely available in an office structure, you are going to get thermite like chemicals. People know this perfectly well, but not every building is going to get hit by a plane, so why bother?

And yes, it is a glass box.

Glass Box:



Se what I did there? Make larger columns. BAM. WTC. It's a glass box.


Nice job bringing my religious beliefs into the argument. As if it even matters or makes me wrong.

But hey, when strawman fallacies are all you've got...

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So you realize the structure itself is a massive variable.


Yes I do.


Yet you think software today can recreate an accurate representation of the structures from scratch, with no human input at all?


And yet again. This is the problem with trying to talk with people here. I said no such thing and even think less.


I asked where are the parameters for NIST's simulations.


Do you know I am one of the ORIGINAL AE911truth Engineers who started this whole shebang?


I have seen many an engineer complain about this.


Obviously I AM THE engineer who brought this to the forefront of NIST. But, you guys still don't listen when evidence is given. Why?

I have come to the conclusion that the evidence is for the OS in regards to the WTC 7 samples, but I am VERY MUCH against how NIST has handled everything and am even one of the original engineers who started this whole thing.

Don't read a book by it's cover.



What kind of a knee-jerk response is this? I KNOW you didn't even think or double-check this at all. Just a "What?" and quickly "NOO I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

This is getting really irritable, because not only are you wrong, but you are putting up absolutely no effort at all into this.


Let me just state. I have studied more of the towers than you will ever imagine. Kay?



From FEMA's report. Chapter 2.

Please follow along.


Floor construction typically consisted of 4 inches of lightweight concrete on 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge non-composite steel deck. In the core area, slab thickness was 5 inches.


www.fema.gov...

Ohhhhh you just got SLAMMED.


"What? No they didn't."

Yes they did my increasingly confused friend. Yes, they did.


The floor was different than the core my "confused friend".


And how do your Jetson-age simulators tell if the WTC Towers had 4 or 5 inches of concrete in a given place, when all you tell them is "physics"?


Actually, it's called a 2x4. Mabey you have heard of it? It is used to "level" concrete and make sure it is the exact dimension specified. Maybe you've heard of specifications?



Very vocal about parameters being unnecessary and all you needing to program is "physics"?


Again. Calm down and quit putting words in my mouth. I WAS one of the original engineers who demanded this information from NIST.



[edit on 21-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Nice job ALSO bringing in unrelated topic to slander me. But again, when all you've got left is strawman fallacy, what else are you going to argue?

The parameters you were talking about are not used so much anymore.

Of course you need to put in data. Here's mine for a simple explosion.

If you want to modify the set values, be my guess.




Now you see, in architecture we have scale and simulated models. You can use simulated models for physics, and not look anything near like the real thing. In fact I could use crackers and drumb sticks and it would still be considered a valid simulation model in a review with professors. It would not be, of course, a proper scale model.

Yea maybe I got confused because I don't use the word parameter. I use the word program and input. But that does not make me wrong. And it does not change the fact that you have not answered the question at hand.

So now, do me a favor, answer the question.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
but the bottom of the wave of destruction accelerates at a very uniform rate of about 2/3rds free fall.


See.... this is why many people just don't get physics. I don't mean to be an ass but you can not have acceleration and at the same time have uniform rates of speed. That contradicts itself in physical terms.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



Not to speak for Gorman1 but that is exactlywhat they were.


You are comparing a steel structure to glass?


When you take the calculations floor by floor, yes they were.


No, they were not. They were more than adequately designed. In-fact they were designed to withstand the impact of multiple 707s. Hardly something a "glass box" could manage imo.


External olumns have no effect on the internal structure.


Try again. Your claim that you are an engineer is in doubt.


Do you? They were past their prime IMO.


Yes I do thanks. They were no doubt past their prime, doesn't mean they suddenly turned into a house of cards.


Please take a structural engineering class. Or at least go to Rome. Or to Egypt. Or to South America. Isn't it funny how most modern buildings need to be taken down within 50 years, yet the pyramids have stood for millenia? Yeah, it's Modern Marvels at work huh?


Thanks mate, but I already have my BE majoring in structural. Any structure which is historically preserved will last a very long time. Are you saying the leaning tower of Pisa is stronger than the twin towers?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Actually external columns do not have any effect on internal structure in the kind you are saying. They each support their own structures that are tied together structurally and tectonically. IE, glass box. One goes the other one follows.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The gentleman featured in the OP went about physically recreating the rubble pile, putting all the drywall dust and aluminum and everything else strapped directly onto the steel column and burned at high temperatures for days on end.


And did I ever say that his experiment was null and void? No, I didn't. Just not conclusive as I have shown a thermite type reaction with gypsum.


How can you prove that this kind of environment will naturally produce your drywall-thermite?


How did he conclusively prove that it didn't?


Usually engineers discover these things and it becomes a major technological interest. Like galvanic corrosion.


Why do you think I HAVE taken an intersest in this?


Once that was discovered it quickly became a new topic of education and engineers started going out of their way to avoid it.


Exactly. Maybe we are on to something?



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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.


What?



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.


Cantilever floor slab, ever heard of it? I shouldn't have to explain the principles of it to you.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Don't you think engineers might want to know about this phenomenon so they can make their designs safer?


Exactly why I have been one of the main engineers on this.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


They would require less strong steel with less power. Also the floors were more or less squares with holes in the middle for the internal structure supported by large columns. IE, A glass box.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Nope It does make perfect sense now. Want protection? Don't use gypsum.


I think I'll take my chances until this fantastic phenomenon is proved.


Se what I did there? Make larger columns. BAM. WTC. It's a glass box.


Ah I see what you did there! By making the columns wider and the area of glass smaller, it becomes a glass box! Sorry about bringing your beliefs in, just can't help myself from pointing out the awesome logic that is going on.




top topics



 
133
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join