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: 15
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
And if we were going to model the sears tower we would use a different form and different structure.


So a couple more tetris blocks on the sides you mean?



I am saying the WTC is a big fat tetris tower. And so a simple simulation is all that is needed.


And I'm willing to let this opinion of yours stand.

And I will state once more for the record that I believe such a simplistic simulation, that doesn't even utilize the building's structural documents, is not "all that is needed" and that's why NIST, as awful as their study was, didn't even resort to using tetris blocks. Even they know most Americans have more common sense than to think tetris blocks are a sufficient model for the worst engineering catastrophies in modern history.

Thanks for the discussion... We've circled enough. I'll agree to disagree with the above. And that's a wrap.




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Well yea honestly. That's modernism! That's why I am not exactly a fan of the style.

You can disagree indeed. Pretty much though, the structure was useless once the collapse began. That's why modernism in that style sucks honestly. You end up with things that do not last. Ever think why these structures don't last and Rome's 2000 year old Pantheon still does?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


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.


Actually. What you wrote made me think you were saying that the floor thicknesses varied from perimeter column to core column. Meaning a tapered floor. Of which, my respose is correct.

Since you clarifyed that you ment the two distinct floors (main floor decking and core floor decking), I agreed.

There was no back tracking.

BTW. if a human experiment can't be compared with something that happened naturally, how does this not negate your OP experiment? Did he have the exact ratio of materials?


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...


And yet you still argued and even went so far as to accusse someone of being inebriated.




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.


I guess wrapping rusted steel balls in aluminum foil is a precise measured mixture?



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.


A grinder can be used to simulate a tower grinding itself. Ever hear of simulations? It's the only way to experiment on something that has happened naturally.


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."


You must be mixing us up again. That wasn't me. Actually, I am the engineer who started this whole thing with NIST (indirectly).

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
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?


This, I can agree with. The key here would be the centroid of those members. As it's placement is the key to calculating "I" (moment of Inertia) which changes from member to member depending on sizes.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
POSTING REMINDER!!

Attacking each other rather than debating the topic will stop NOW!

Further attacks, name-calling and derailing of the topic will be removed, edited and/or warned.

Please read the following before further posting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
if a human experiment can't be compared with something that happened naturally, how does this not negate your OP experiment?


Because he had no control over what chemically happened to all the crap he put together and then set on fire for days.

There are still such things as dependent and independent variables you know. You remember those words?

Engineers aren't special people to me. They're just like anybody else, except that a lot of them apparently think that the title of "engineer" makes them something like super psychics that don't have to prove anything. Just the opposite. You're supposed to be more enabled BECAUSE of your training. Instead you ask questions whose answers lie in basic understanding of the scientific method. Did I mention that I know a lot of engineers who've forgotten damned near everything except the math they have to work on a daily basis? Now what use is being an engineer when you don't use that knowledge?


Did he have the exact ratio of materials?


Describe this "exact ratio of materials" to me. I mean I understand what you are getting at, but not everything is a FAE or thermite, and not everything has to be measured precisely to get a result. So explain why this reaction would have to be precisely measured first of all. For example it doesn't matter what amount of acid you throw into a base, the stuff that touches will react nonetheless. The only thing you change by the "ratio" there is how much of a reaction will take place.

In the OP's case, NO such reaction took place as what was documented by FEMA, AT ALL!!

So I would sooner believe the same corrosive agents weren't present at all. If the corrosive agents were as complex as engineered nano-energetics and required that much precision to work at all, then occam's razor would tell you that this theory is no improvement whatsoever over nanothermite. Only if you can arrive at an easier and more reproducible way to recreate the corrosion will you have a better theory.




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...


And yet you still argued and even went so far as to accusse someone of being inebriated.


I honestly believe he may have been. I've seen people post drunk on ATS plenty of times and admit to as much. People sitting around after a day at work at home, hell you know a lot of people are drinking when they post. And all those typos and grammatical errors on top of what he was actually saying, weren't doing anything to convince me otherwise...




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.


I guess wrapping rusted steel balls in aluminum foil is a precise measured mixture?


I have no idea what you are referring to, but it has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I was talking about the fact that NONE of you have ever been able to demonstrate how a thermite reaction can occur "naturally." There has been TALK of it for years but real science is not based on TALK.



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.


A grinder can be used to simulate a tower grinding itself. Ever hear of simulations? It's the only way to experiment on something that has happened naturally.


If "natural thermite" reactions are possible then I don't believe it would be necessary to grind up a skyscraper to reproduce the effect. Just take the same materials, without having to destroy a skyscraper. And why do I have to post common sense like this so often when responding to you "debunkers"?


It's really not a lot to ask that you prove your theories. I will admit right now that you have a theory. There is no debate there. But whether or not it's correct, you're not going to be able to prove that to me with just words when nobody has ever demonstrated any such thing before, so I wonder why you're even still trying. Recreate it. These are basic, everyday building materials we are talking about, not rare earth metals or anything exotic.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
So explain why this reaction would have to be precisely measured first of all.


To get a direct result, it should at least be close to the dust samples correct?


For example it doesn't matter what amount of acid you throw into a base, the stuff that touches will react nonetheless. The only thing you change by the "ratio" there is how much of a reaction will take place.


So, how does this negate the possibility that a natural thermitic reaction took place?


In the OP's case, NO such reaction took place as what was documented by FEMA, AT ALL!!


How much powderized aluminum did he use? I didn't see any.


So I would sooner believe the same corrosive agents weren't present at all. If the corrosive agents were as complex as engineered nano-energetics and required that much precision to work at all, then occam's razor would tell you that this theory is no improvement whatsoever over nanothermite. Only if you can arrive at an easier and more reproducible way to recreate the corrosion will you have a better theory.


This super nanothermite caused the corrosion on only 2 pieces of steel found out of thousands?

Doesn't sound so super-duper to me then.



I have no idea what you are referring to, but it has nothing to do with what you're responding to. I was talking about the fact that NONE of you have ever been able to demonstrate how a thermite reaction can occur "naturally." There has been TALK of it for years but real science is not based on TALK.


Look at my original videos that I posted. Wrapping aluminum around a rusted steel ball and striking against another rusted steel ball causes thermitic sparks. It's not really a precise mixture.

Do you know why steel drill bits aren't used on aluminum? It can cause a thermitic reaction. Again. Not a very precise mixture.


If "natural thermite" reactions are possible then I don't believe it would be necessary to grind up a skyscraper to reproduce the effect. Just take the same materials, without having to destroy a skyscraper. And why do I have to post common sense like this so often when responding to you "debunkers"?


Because if you grind up the materials in a grinder you are simulating the tower collapsing. I don't know how it could be any more simple.


It's really not a lot to ask that you prove your theories. I will admit right now that you have a theory. There is no debate there. But whether or not it's correct, you're not going to be able to prove that to me with just words when nobody has ever demonstrated any such thing before, so I wonder why you're even still trying. Recreate it. These are basic, everyday building materials we are talking about, not rare earth metals or anything exotic.


1. I don't have a lab.

2. I can not perform the necessary fire simulations where I live (I'd probably be arrested as an arsen).



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
To get a direct result, it should at least be close to the dust samples correct?


It was, and nothing happened. Every single time the experiment is done and the steel is NOT corroded, you could say they didn't use the right materials or ratios. So tell me what the "right" way to do it is. Crushed drywall, solid drywall, both soaked in rain water (since that's how "debunkers" claim the sulfur could be extracted), aluminum scrap, were all used and nothing happened.

So tell me exactly what the right materials would be, and the right ratios.

And then show how you figure this.

If you are basing all of this on real chemistry, then you should be able to calculate what would be required for the given reaction to take place.

If you're just blindly flinging poop on walls to see what will stick, you'll just continue asking me rhetorical questions about your theory. I expect that's exactly what you'll continue to do. It's what you've been doing all along so far.



For example it doesn't matter what amount of acid you throw into a base, the stuff that touches will react nonetheless. The only thing you change by the "ratio" there is how much of a reaction will take place.


So, how does this negate the possibility that a natural thermitic reaction took place?


Let me be clear: I'm not trying to negate your theory. You have offered no evidence for it to begin with, so proving it wrong isn't necessary. All I have to do, is point out that you're just speculating from a computer chair, and you can't even prove that thermite reactions happen "naturally."



In the OP's case, NO such reaction took place as what was documented by FEMA, AT ALL!!


How much powderized aluminum did he use? I didn't see any.


And how much was at Ground Zero? Because I don't remember hearing much about powderized aluminum dust covering everything, and even if I did it would only raise more questions than answers. Maybe you have some figures on that?

You wouldn't want to try to use more aluminum powder than was actually in the dust, now would you?


This super nanothermite caused the corrosion on only 2 pieces of steel found out of thousands?


No one analyzed thousands of pieces of steel for this corrosion. The feds didn't analyze "thousands" of pieces of steel in their investigations, period. They didn't look at even ONE piece of steel from WTC7. So stop making up bull crap. Or have you stopped beating your wife yet?


Look at my original videos that I posted. Wrapping aluminum around a rusted steel ball and striking against another rusted steel ball causes thermitic sparks. It's not really a precise mixture.


And this has what to do with your theory again? Is wrapping aluminum around rusty balls something that happens often in nature, according to you?


Do you know why steel drill bits aren't used on aluminum? It can cause a thermitic reaction. Again. Not a very precise mixture.


Have a source for that? I would love to see what "research" this is based on.



If "natural thermite" reactions are possible then I don't believe it would be necessary to grind up a skyscraper to reproduce the effect. Just take the same materials, without having to destroy a skyscraper. And why do I have to post common sense like this so often when responding to you "debunkers"?


Because if you grind up the materials in a grinder you are simulating the tower collapsing. I don't know how it could be any more simple.


Re-read what you are responding to:

"If "natural thermite" reactions are possible then I don't believe it would be necessary to grind up a skyscraper to reproduce the effect. Just take the same materials, without having to destroy a skyscraper."

I don't know how to make it any simpler, either.




It's really not a lot to ask that you prove your theories. I will admit right now that you have a theory. There is no debate there. But whether or not it's correct, you're not going to be able to prove that to me with just words when nobody has ever demonstrated any such thing before, so I wonder why you're even still trying. Recreate it. These are basic, everyday building materials we are talking about, not rare earth metals or anything exotic.


1. I don't have a lab.


You call what Mr. Cole was using, a "lab"? A pile of wood burning outside?


2. I can not perform the necessary fire simulations where I live (I'd probably be arrested as an arsen).


Well I hope you at least enjoy living in your Nanny State where you aren't even trusted to build a fire outside.

Because without an experiment, there are no two ways about it: your theory is just that.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I thought everyone here might be interested in this NIST link,
It is a FAQ sheet on the towers. Some of you might find answers seemingly in conflict, as they address different questions. Someone mentioned in either this thread or the "Thermate" thread about the towers being able to withstand multiple hits from 707's, I'd never heard that before and in the FAQ the NIST states that not to be the case, the inference, which does make sense, was it was to withstand a crash from one aircraft...a 707. They do go on to say however, that they were not privvy to an actual document, or first-hand document other than the NY port authority information, so there is some conflict of actual documentation versus presumption there. There is other stuff, so I would be interested what other people think of this FAQ in it's answers.

wtc.nist.gov...

Will anyone after reading see any other conflicts in the answers?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The Truth Movement”, an online video chat room, is pleased to announce that Richard Gage, AIA, the very well known and respected licensed commercial Architect of 22 years and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.ae911truth.org) ,will be providing a free worldwide presentation on key scientific evidence that the conclusions of the U.S. governments’ investigation into 9/11 was not comprehensive. It is vital that we unite to expose this cover-up.

We invite all your users & members to click the banner with the free link behind it, (webmaster) to be brought right into the chat room on the night of the event. They can also come into the chat room at any time prior to or after this unique event, by clicking the banner, and see for themselves what this new medium is all about, and join in the discussion. For your webmaster we provide a link, to be embedded behind the banner and placed as prominently on your site as soon as possible. For a forum based site, the link is enough it is seamless, and it brings interested parties directly into the room. They then only have to choose their user name, password and an answer to a security question for access.

Because the link is already activated – you must inform anyone who may click it that they can click it now and be immediately brought into the room or click during the LIVE event on Friday the 27th and hear Richard Gage live. The room is open 24/7.


"CLICK NOW TO CHAT WITH THE ROOM AHEAD OF THE EVENT"
Here is the link to place behind the banner or posted in a forum. express.paltalk.com...

"CLICK FRIDAY DURING POSTED TIMES FOR RICHARD GAGE LIVE"

This is the html and banner location. www.ustruthmovement.com...

I also urge you to send this to any websites or webmasters you may know.
By placing the banner on your website you are helping us promote the truth and the restoration of our rights.
We also propose for your consideration, that one of your members or founders could become a future guest speaker in our room to meet with the people in a relaxed comfortable and conversationally stimulating environment.

Let the people hear the facts and decide how they are going to act.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by email. Please email us back with either your approval to do this or your rejection.

Thank you for your consideration,
PalTalk “The Truth Movement Room” Administrator





posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


The right way done is only by NIST standards. Sadly, this is how these people will say is the "right" way.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


a blinding flash etc etc etc....furthermore to even suggest that 'thermite', people have since come to LOVE this word as i NEVER heard of it prior to this charade, was 'sprayed' on the structure when 'fire proofing' was done is absurd.


Thermite has been around since world war two,..and was used very effectively on D DAY by Dick Winters and the boys of easy to silence the guns silently at Brecourt manor.

So, its nothing new.

And building work was going on on several floors prior to the 9/11 attacks, giving the necessary access to the interior structure of the building.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1972

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


a blinding flash etc etc etc....furthermore to even suggest that 'thermite', people have since come to LOVE this word as i NEVER heard of it prior to this charade, was 'sprayed' on the structure when 'fire proofing' was done is absurd.


Thermite has been around since world war two,..and was used very effectively on D DAY by Dick Winters and the boys of easy to silence the guns silently at Brecourt manor.

So, its nothing new.

And building work was going on on several floors prior to the 9/11 attacks, giving the necessary access to the interior structure of the building.



Have you got a source for 1944 paratroops being supplied with thermite please ?

According to Stephen Ambrose, author of Band of Brothers, the German guns at Brecourt Manor were destroyed by putting a slab of tnt down the barrels and set off by German stick grenades.

Hard to see why the guns had to be destroyed silently while there was a minor battle going on involving machine guns, mortars and grenades.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
Hi Alfie,
There was a device called the Lewis bomb. It comprised of Thermite and plastic explosive, I don't know how it activated, but probably by a detonator in the plastic, I'll check out the Lewis bomb anyway.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Just a friendly heads up on the grenades!

www.fas.org...

www.band-of-brothers.nl...


Bob estimated that he carried 150 pounds of gear for his first combat jump. Amongst other equipment and gear, he jumped into Normandy with his M-1 rifle and extra supplies of food. Some guys in his company were packing the so called 'thermite' grenades, supposed to wreck the inside of the German artillery pieces they were slipped into.


I'm a huge WWII buff!
so I thought I might give ya a hand in this department! Hope you dont mind!

ww2paratroopers.com...


Paul explains what took place at this hedgerow opening. This is where the Germans had moved the guns from Pointe du Hoc and is where Len Lommel spiked the breeches with thermite grenades, thus rendering the guns useless to the Germans.


I think they used many methods to disable or destroy the cannons. Thermate grenades were the best!

EDIT to add:

Indeed, Brecourt Manor's artillery were destroyed in the manner you speak of. However, the artillery cannons at Point-du-Hoc were destroyed by thermite/ate grenades. I know I know, they keep bouncing between thermite and thermate. lol!

[edit on 9/1/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 



Lewes Bomb

Here you go!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by smurfy
 



Lewes Bomb

Here you go!

Thanks for the info Gen. I was actually doubtful about the use of a detonator to encourage the thermite reaction, but the article says that it was used?? What I also did not know was that the use of diesel oil was included. I am wondering if this something else to be considered here at this thread. Plus that Sulphur would be used in Thermate, and plus that our old friend Barium Nitrate would have also been used in a special mix.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I think the addition of the desiel was to make it more flammable and to allow the burning liquid to spread over the object to be destroyed! Of course they used this to take out airplanes on the ground. The detonator was for the plastic explosive to go off. The thermite and fuel was for the incendiary part. But nonetheless, plastic explosives going off are very loud indeed!




top topics



 
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join