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

Originally posted by Nutter
Did I NOT admit it was a valid experiment. But, so is mine.

Where's your experiment?

It is still inconclusive. You know why? Imagine what a grinder is. Now, imagine a 110-story building grinding itself to the ground.

You are free to grind up whatever materials were present and sprinkle them around before you light it up. Why not. Go ahead.

But what do you think he did wrong, that no such reaction as you're claiming took place?

Professionally? Ground up aluminum.

As long as it matches Ground Zero dust samples in the amount of tiny aluminum particles present per volume. Like I said, get to it.

I have no burden. Put some aluminum in a grinder for a second and see what happens.

Rapid oxidation of fine aluminum particles is not what's being debated and you know it. And no, I won't do a DAMNED thing to verify YOUR theory. I'd just as soon tell you it's wrong and there is no point even trying, but you are free to do as you will.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


a hum.

www.ehow.com...


You should probably stop running away from arguments you lose and causally ignoring them and changing the subject. Quite a distortion tactic.

Originally posted by Gorman91
You should probably stop running away from arguments you lose and causally ignoring them and changing the subject. Quite a distortion tactic.

Kind of like how I proved you completely wrong about the concrete thicknesses, and you dropped it and never mentioned it again?

Or how about how you think simulation parameters are obsolete, or at least that's what you said first, then you admitted there were tons of variables to the buildings, and then you said simulations mostly require no input now. (?) And with the string of grammar and spelling errors from you on the last page I'm really not convinced you're even sober right now.

And now I'm trying to figure out what in the HELL your link has to do with anything. Maybe you want to put together a few more sentences to fit that link in with some kind of actual argument you're making.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Thermite reactions happen naturally.

Of course concrete matters. For the outside structure. But there was a gaping hole. A time bomb with set with the heat.

And please do not mix up what I said. The simulation requires input. Otherwise it would be an AI. What I was thinking is that you have to design each individual steel rod. Which for simulations models is purely ridiculous.

The fact remains, which you have yet to answer, that a simulations shows the building fall into its foot print, showed the "spews" people called explosives, and showed pretty much the whole demo conspiracy to be dead. The rest, the idea about thermite, is explained in the link.

Simply put, there is no reason for conspiracy, All things are explained. Exactly what do you have left for any intervention at all in these events other than the government causally forgetting about the reports that it was going to happen.

Where is the need for demos?

Where is the need for intervention?

Where is the need for this silly conspiracy?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Gorman91]

I'm going to summon your own quote against you.

Originally posted by Gorman91
You should probably stop running away from arguments you lose and causally ignoring them and changing the subject. Quite a distortion tactic.

I'll resume discussion when you admit I proved you wrong about the varying thicknesses of the concrete on the last page.

It's a trivial point really, so it should be easy to admit you were wrong, instead of continuing to ignore it. Read your own quote above. "Quite a distortion tactic," yes?


If you can't even admit something this simple, then there is no way in hell anyone is going to ever get you to admit anything more complicated. And I'm STILL not convinced you're sober, and you should probably get some rest and come back tomorrow.


Oh well. Like I said, I'll respond to you again when you admit I proved you wrong with the FEMA report on the last page. Go re-read it if you need reminding or you think you can possibly weasel out of it somehow. But I'll still be waiting.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Considering I never said a word about concrete I would wonder what you proved right when I never discussed it?

I would imagine you would have to do that what with the extra couple hundred tons. However, as the towers fell the weight of the falling exacerbated and exceeded the resistance of the concrete. So a fail to see the relevance other than it being basic common sense on construction.

Of course I have not looked that up so you could be right or you could be wrong. But it does not change the facts of the matter nor answer the questions I posed.

If we are arguing about fish and I said the ocean was blue randomly and claimed I beat you on it, that would be a poor comment with absolutely no point in the conversation.

So A, don't say you won a discussion with me when I did not even comment on it nor discuss it, and B, stop changing the subject and answer my questions already.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
Considering I never said a word about concrete I would wonder what you proved right when I never discussed it?

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

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.

I looked back and you're right. It was Nutter who said this, and then I missed his reply to it, which was basically to back-track and pretend he already knew they varied in thickness from open floor to core, even though he clearly denied it in the quote above. I knew I was going to get you two confused last night the way I was trying to have two conversations at once in this thread...

Originally posted by Gorman91
Thermite reactions happen naturally.

You're not the first to say this. Remember Frank Greening? What ever came of that?

This theory has been around for years and I have yet to see a single demonstration of someone creating a thermite reaction just by putting a bunch of stuff together and setting it on fire like it would have been in the rubble pile. The ONLY thermite reactions I've EVER seen were all man-made mixtures lit by humans.

Being able to reproduce a principle and demonstrate its physical validity is what science depends on, and in this case you have nothing like that.

Originally posted by Gorman91
And please do not mix up what I said. The simulation requires input. Otherwise it would be an AI. What I was thinking is that you have to design each individual steel rod. Which for simulations models is purely ridiculous.

Yes, it would be. I must have confused you with Nutter again because I remember when I asked what the parameters for some simulation was based on, the naive answer I got was "physics."

The fact remains, which you have yet to answer, that a simulations shows the building fall into its foot print, showed the "spews" people called explosives, and showed pretty much the whole demo conspiracy to be dead.

Again I want to see the parameters of this model and what they were based on. I wonder what they could possibly be based on other than speculation since the data necessary to model the entire buildings accurately was never released by NIST.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


The building and its chemicals were made by man and the fire was lit by man. It happened.

What you saw was probably a zinc sulfer reaction in heat.


Zinc would be on the exposed iron and surfer is in the walls. Drywall is easily reduced to dust and zinc melts pretty easily off the iron. There you go. A couple of localized reactions and you have termite.


The simulation is a simulation model. What acts like The structure of the wtc? Pretty much anything you can find. If the simulated model shows that similar materials behave similarly to the WTC event then there is no conspiracy.

This is an engine with pre made materials. You don't have to type in parameters for anything other then coding the events that occurred. Create a path for the plane. Collide, done. That's the whole reason people love GPU simulators that are now getting used in schools. A whole crap ton of things are done for you because it's a video game engine that has pre defined models. The engine physics are back engineered to run legitimate simulations.

What you are talking about are simple primitive simulators where you have to type in a host of data that this one already has put in. The person who modeled the model used typed in the characteristics of the item before it was shipped so you don't have to. This is why businesses and architects are beginning to favor GPU game engines. All you have to do is create a 3d model, type in a short code describing the time, then build with it.


Let this guy explain to you why it's favorable.

Originally posted by Gorman91
The building and its chemicals were made by man and the fire was lit by man. It happened.

What happened?

Include your evidence for once.

The simulation is a simulation model. What acts like The structure of the wtc? Pretty much anything you can find.

In other words you have no regard at all for recreating the structure to any degree of accuracy. And you probably judge your results just as naively.

This is an engine with pre made materials. You don't have to type in parameters for anything other then coding the events that occurred.

I'm going to stop arguing with you about this because you made it clear pages ago that you have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. I'll just wait for you to explain where the structural data came from that the simulations were based on. I notice you can never answer this and seem to have the equivalent of a stroke every time I ask.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Simulations. You use similar materials. Sorry but that's the way you do it. Oh sure you can be perfectly exact, but as the people who do this stuff say, why enter a thousand lines when you can enter a few dozen and get something within acceptable error ranges. It's as simple as that. A solid cylinder behaves similar to an iron support bar.

Like I said. I've used food to demonstrate simulated models and passed for grades. Strings and paper clips. If the material behaves similar, it's accepted. You don't use paper for iron. But you can use paper clips for iron.

So where does the parameters come from? I suppose the programmer in Texas who typed them in or something. I don't know because I did not make the program. That's what I've told you many multitudes over.

You can call is bad or wrong. I really don't care. You have to explain how it's bad.

Now I could go on and on over this. But the facts still remain. Simulation showed what the towers did with similar materials. Explain the need for explosives or anything at all.

As to how, I gave you the link. Failing to read it or an inability to comprehend is not my disablement, it is yours.

As the atheist says to the creationist, why is a creator needed when natural events do just the same? Why is a demo needed for what can be done naturally?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by Gorman91
So where does the parameters come from? I suppose the programmer in Texas who typed them in or something. I don't know because I did not make the program.

My question: What structural data was used to model the WTC Towers in the simulations you're talking about?

Your answer: "I don't know."


At least you're honest. Thank you.

reply to post by Gorman91



oh Gorman, here are the actual facts of who designed what...and not a mention of GLASS BOX Construction or your whats his name.

The World Trade Center Tube
The final design for the WTC was a group effort, bringing together the work of dozens of architects, structural engineers and managers, led by a few prominent talents. The Port Authority's Guy Tozzoli selected the final team and managed the entire design and construction process; the chief architect on the project, Minoru Yamasaki, came up with the twin towers concept, as well as the basic layout for the rest of the complex; structural engineers Leslie Robertson and John Skilling figured out how to make the towers stand up.

no mention of the guy you mentioned...

The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.

Now pay attention Gorman...

The outer box, measuring 208 feet by 208 feet (63x63 m), was made up of 14-inch (36-cm) wide steel columns, 59 per building face, spaced just over 3 feet (1 m) apart. On every floor above the plaza level, the spaces between the columns housed 22-inch (56-cm) windows. Yamasaki, who had a pronounced fear of heights, felt that the small windows made the building feel more secure. The columns were covered with aluminum, giving the towers a distinctive silver color. The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms.

not a "mies van der rohe = Glass Box Architecture" in sight here

This design had two major advantages. First of all, it gave the building remarkable stability. In addition to shouldering some of the vertical load (the weight of the building), the outer steel columns supported all of the horizontal forces acting on the tower (the force of the wind). This meant the inner support structure was completely dedicated to the huge vertical loads.

Secondly, the tube design made for great real estate. With the support structure moved to the sides and center of the building, there was no need to space bulky columns throughout each floor. Clients could configure the available space, about 3/4 of an acre per floor, however they wanted.

science.howstuffworks.com...


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Danbones]

MOD EDIT, to remove off topic comments
Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.

[edit on Mon Aug 23 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by Danbones


"Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost.

In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".

www.911myths.com...

Are you still thinking that I am just posting claims without being able to provide a source ?

Is there something else that I have posted that you would like a link to ?

If not , then please stop trying to come across with your incredulous innuendos that what I have said can't be valid .

They found the girl's hip so , please explain why you would consider this to be "non-useful" evidence ?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by okbmd]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


no no no. Don't twist it. I said I did not make it, not that I do not know.

The simulator uses representative materials that behave the same way.

reply to post by Danbones


Oh danbones, so silly of you to think that no mention means it is not true.

I'm going to make this really simple:

Now this is the story all about how
Mies Roe's style got flipped, turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute just sit right there
I'll tell you how Yamasaki became the prince of a town called Trade Centair!

In Westphalia born and raised
On the drawing board where he spent most of his days
Thinkin' out, maxing, "International Style" all cool
And all shooting some lines up 'n down this foo'l
When a couple of guys said 'we're Neo in this Classicool'
Started making trouble in his modernist 'hood
He got in one little fight and his proff' got scared
And said 'you're moving with your cash into Union States'

He begged and pleaded with them that one day
But they packed his 'case and sent him on his way
They gave him a kissin' and they gave him his ticket
He put his style on and said he might as well kick it

First class, yo this is bad,
New York's juice all over that neoclassical swagg
Is this what the people of New York livin' like?
Hmm this ain't be alright!

He whistled for a Lloyd and when it came near the
Le Corbusier said 'Fresh' and had a grid on the pad
If anything He could say that this town was rare
But he thought now forget it, yo home to modernist International style!

Yamasaki pulled up to a Seagram about nineteen sixty seven or eight
And he yelled to the style 'Yo, home smell you later'
Looked at his kingdom, he was finally there
To settle his throne as the prince of Trade Centare!



Hope you get the message.




[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Gorman91


I believe you are intentionally avoiding my question because no one can possibly be this ignorant.


Okay. So there is a difference between modeling the WTC Towers and modeling the Sears Tower, correct?

Where did the structural data come from that your simulations are based on? The data that would distinguish the WTC structure, from other structures.

I'm talking about exact column lengths, thicknesses, depths, geometrical arrangements. These are what strengths, forces, masses, etc. are calculated from. It is CRUCIAL to have accurate data, or else you will not have accurate results. Where did this data come from, that would be REQUIRED INPUT to model the WTC Towers?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


That? Again that's for a perfectly accurate model. A tower of coins falls the same way a tower of tires does. A wall made of toothpicks behaves the same manner that concrete piers would. a structure which replicates the form of the WTC made out of something crude such as solid cylinders will behave the same way. What the simulations prove is that the WTC could in fact fall into their foot prints and fall in the manner they did, at the speeds they did. Nothing more. The only lose end after that is what would create such an event. Demos? Nope, because we just proved you don't need them. Fire? Not likely alone. The link I sent proves that a thermite reaction could occur naturally in the environment. The steel was already weakened and bending. With the thermite the thing cracked. With the outer hole and the inner collapse, you get pancakes. The end.

What you are asking does not effect the simulation in question. We were simulating collapse behavior and speed. The materials used in question to simulate this were within the bounds to create an accurate style.

To put that simply, If a brick wall falls over one way, a larger brick wall will more than likely fall over the same way if built int he same manner and style.

Originally posted by Gorman91
That? Again that's for a perfectly accurate model. A tower of coins falls the same way a tower of tires does. A tower of coins falls the same way a tower of tires does. A wall made of toothpicks behaves the same manner that concrete piers would. a structure which replicates the form of the WTC made out of something crude such as solid cylinders will behave the same way.

You are telling me that modeling the WTC Towers is no different than modeling the Sears Tower, or some solid cylinder of properties no doubt left to the programmer.

You just model something, anything, that's very tall and is unstable enough to fall to the ground, and you think you actually have proof of something.

So you're not talking about using structural documentation at all to model the WTC Towers at all. You wouldn't need it. Because you're not simulating the WTC Towers themselves at all. You're simulating an extremely simplified model designed by the programmer.


That kind of simulation is worthless, because it doesn't prove anything. You literally might as well model a stack of tires. It would have just as much to do with the actual structure of the towers.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


No, now you are twisting again. The WTC is not the sears tower. And if we were going to model the sears tower we would use a different form and different structure. I am saying the WTC is a big fat tetris tower. And so a simple simulation is all that is needed. Towers do not act like steel. They act like rubber towers. If you want to model how a single solid item stacked on top of a single solid item would fall go ahead. But if you were to replicate that tower many times over you would have something closer. But still, solid cylinder towers next to each other, like the video showed, is most closest.

Remember the facts about solidity. Each element is its own. A tower of tires has single solid layers. Not the multiple towering side structures that the WTC has.

So please don't twist and use some common sense.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Gorman91]

They have us so twisted-up at this point that we can't even agree to disagree.
I do not believe the leaders of most any movement now !
I wait like a fisherman with a worm on the hook for my information providers to make a false strike and expose themselves !
All I can rely on is my individual repeated and detailed research.
After much effort and constant critical thinking exercises:
I beleive in the dustification of the spire.
I am puzzled that the top of one building tilted, yet did not fall to the ground.
I am puzzled by the lack of jet interception, as I was the moment the incident was broadcast on the television. I recall being shocked that there was a lack of response when out Pentagon, "The most powerful and secure Military Headquarters in the World," was attacked. This still seems so incongruous.
I am shocked that reports came out that explosions occurred in the towers AND in building 7 BEFORE any structural degradation occurred.
I am distracted by so many conflicting theories.
Not that distracted though.
I see something wrong.