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.

 

Can the NIST report withstand a peer review?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually as a Civil/Structural/Forensics Engineer, I can say with confidence that once collapse initiation started, there was nothing to stop it. So, that part of the OS I can truelly believe. It's collapse initiation that I have a question about (I would have said a "problem with", but, there ARE things that the common person doesn't realize that could have happened). My question is: If the NIST is so sure, then why are they hiding information?


It would be more believable though if it didn't happen to 3 buildings in ONE DAY...




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


thats a good point
I wonder what the actual odds of that happening are



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
It would be more believable though if it didn't happen to 3 buildings in ONE DAY...


I agree, but I was trying to stay on the middle road for this arguement. But, yes, I agree.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
I wonder what the actual odds of that happening are


I think someone equated it as being about 1 in three trillion......the same amount that they "lost" the day before.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


There is a very very low probability for that to occour. If you factor in the fashion in which WTC 7 collapsed and put the probability of it on top of it, then we are talking of an very low degree of likelyhood that the events indeed unfolded the way we have been told by the authorities.

You stand a better chance to win the lottery several time in a row.

Believing the official conspiracy theory is just plain insane, once you realize the likelyhood.
edit on 17-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Actually as a Civil/Structural/Forensics Engineer, I can say with confidence that once collapse initiation started, there was nothing to stop it. So, that part of the OS I can truelly believe. It's collapse initiation that I have a question about (I would have said a "problem with", but, there ARE things that the common person doesn't realize that could have happened). My question is: If the NIST is so sure, then why are they hiding information?


To be perfectly honest I find that statement truly frightening.

Why aren't all of the civil engineers demanding distribution of steel information? Why have we never seen a layout of how the horizontal beams in the core were connected? If the top of the north tower did start to fall why didn't it inevitably get progressively more off and eventually fall down the side? I would expect engineers to conclude that it came down far too fast for the building to have crushed itself.

psik



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
Actually as a Civil/Structural/Forensics Engineer, I can say with confidence that once collapse initiation started, there was nothing to stop it. So, that part of the OS I can truelly believe. It's collapse initiation that I have a question about


When you mention your profession to give that opinion credibility, have you actually done any kind of analyses that would confirm this opinion, and if so, using what documentation?

From my understanding civil and structural engineers are experts in statics, not dynamic loading, though I can't speak for what forensics you practice. Even one of NIST's FAQs debunks "pancake theory" explicitly by mentioning the fact that a single floor could absorb the dynamic loading of several other floors impacting it, if they should all somehow come loose together at the same instant, which they also found unlikely, as anyone else with some common sense would agree, including yourself I'm sure. Also the floors would only have their own weight as dynamic loads, not also the loads of columns and all the other dead loads that the columns supported as transferred onto them by all the intact floors. My point is that when you mention those fields of study you are mentioning fields that specialize in statics and on top of that they actually rely on analyses that would be impossible to perform given the absence of data.

Not attacking you, just saying...
edit on 17-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 

wtc.nist.gov...

Complete with input from some of the usual truthers. I particularly enjoyed the 121-page brick courtesy of Judy Wood.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Cassius666
 

wtc.nist.gov...

Complete with input from some of the usual truthers. I particularly enjoyed the 121-page brick courtesy of Judy Wood.


To be fair..A believer quoting NIST is like a truther quoting Alex Jones..
What's your point??
In your own words if you have any original thoughts that is...



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Just thought I'd add it in there, since several non-NIST personas were making comments and contributions to the draft of the 7WTC report. Including a fair chunk of truthers.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The explanations presented by truthers such as explosives are by far more rational than what the NIST report presents, which can be summed up as divine intervention.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
If the NIST report had been used as evidence in a real Court it wouldn't have lasted a day. That is probably why it never will make it to court.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


To me invisible explosives that leave no evidence or traces whatsoever sound more like divine intervention to me than huge planes crashing into buildings resulting in large fires. One requires a group of humans to hijack planes and was recorded by hundreds of cameras, while the other requires some mysterious magical force to make all evidence disappear.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


What!

You mean this hasn’t even been pear reviewed by experts. Someone recently started going on about that on ATS the other day with me as if it was “proof” but if what you say is true then it is just rubbish for the most part as it has not been independently pear reviewed. As such it my view it is no longer acceptable for the 9/11 turthers to run around asking me about it anymore.

I cant believe people are ranting about this being the “proof” when its not even been checked by academics who are experts in their field to peer review it or have the opportunity to critique it.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I would expect engineers to conclude that it came down far too fast for the building to have crushed itself.


Look up a French demolition technique called the Verinage Technique. Basically it uses the top portion of a building to demolish the bottom portion. What I've noticed about the technique is that it usually uses the same amount of top building to destroy the bottom.

The perpetrators of 9/11 could have used 3 Verinage techniques to get a tower down (meaning the tower doesn't need explosives on every floor). I do agree that it probably would have taken up to 3 but 1 might have been sufficient (as you stated it's hard to tell not knowing the layout of the structural steel in the core and especially the mechanical floors).


edit on 18-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray11. Look up Verinage and explain how the French do it then.

Just because this technique is possible doesn't mean that the OS is correct. Only that I agree that once collapse started, there was not much to stop it. With a couple key elements taken out (the core for one) it would fall just like we saw.

Disclaimer: Only my opinion of course without doing any structral analysis on the buildings.

Also. Structural forensics. Anything from comercial structural building failure to hail strike damage on homes. And pretty much anything that can come up in between.

I'm not saying I've ever had the joy of doing a full structural collapse analysis though. The point of me bringing in my profession was to point out the protocols of forensic engineering and how the government agencies totally ignored them.
edit on 18-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Why aren't all of the civil engineers demanding distribution of steel information?

Because they, like everyone else in the last decade, know that it is not relevant.

Why have we never seen a layout of how the horizontal beams in the core were connected?

By "we" you, of course, mean you. Look harder.

If the top of the north tower did start to fall why didn't it inevitably get progressively more off and eventually fall down the side?

Because things fall down - straight line as quick as possible unless acted upon.

I would expect engineers to conclude that it came down far too fast for the building to have crushed itself.

But they didn't so I guess that means that you are wrong.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Actually traces of explosives have been found, not by the comission report or the NIST report, who did not test for explosives to begin with, but rather started with the cause and built an explanation around it.

Any way you twist it, if one of the theories, such as laser beams is wrong, it does not make the NIST theory right, which is so unlikely to have occoured as depicted in the reports, that you are more likely to be win the lottery several times in a row and be strucked by lightning each time you go to collect your winnings.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I would expect engineers to conclude that it came down far too fast for the building to have crushed itself.
Look up a French demolition technique called the Verinage Technique. Basically it uses the top portion of a building to demolish the bottom portion. What I've noticed about the technique is that it usually uses the same amount of top building to destroy the bottom.


Come off it, EVERYBODY has been hearing about that crap FOR YEARS.

Has that ever been used on a STEEL FRAME BUILDING? Where?

What percentage of a building is dropped on the rest to preform that method? What percentage of the north tower fell on the rest on 9/11?

Quit wasting time bringing up that irrelevant crap.

psik



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If the top of the north tower did start to fall why didn't it inevitably get progressively more off and eventually fall down the side?

Because things fall down - straight line as quick as possible unless acted upon.


Reality almost never works as perfectly as mathematics. The planets move in a frictionless vacuum so that works. In the real world things rub against each other in unpredictable ways and and don't conform to any mathematical ideal. Straight down was the path of most resistance. Coming down in less than 18 seconds is TOTALLY ABSURD. So after NINE YEARS our engineers have a problem. If what we are told happen is ACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE then the engineers should have figured it out in a few weeks. So now they have to cover their asses.

The nation that put men on the MOON can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. So the engineers need to make the simple look complicated and say, "TRUST THE GREAT ENGINEERS." Even though they leave out the information they want. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up so the distribution of steel must be determined to make them stay up. If it weren't for 9/11 why would anybody give a damn about skyscrapers? The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 before electronic computers and transistors were invented so why should anyone be impressed by the physics of skyscrapers?

www.youtube.com...

psik



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join