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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by bsbray11
Stop right there.

How can you POSSIBLY have 20 floors' worth of mass falling already at initiation? Let alone a uniform 24- or even 12- foot free-fall drop.


If just one stories worth of support (meaning the support above a certain floor to the next floor) is severed, then that top cap becomes it's own structure to fall one floors worth of distance (about 12.5 feet).

Maybe I'm not describing it well enough. I'm not talking floor connections, I'm talking one story worth of column seperation.


If the columns are all severed for initiation, sure, but that's radically different than NIST and still begs the question of how the columns were all severed so rapidly in one area.



Are you saying 20 floors worth of trusses and other live and dead loads just up and plummeted at the same instant? How!?


The how is what I have questions on too. But even if the NIST is correct in their initiation, the bowing in of the columns is exactly what they do to initiate a verinage collapse.


That bowing would naturally occur from the outer columns being overloaded if the core structure had already been compromised, which probably was the real initiation since WTC1's antenna began sinking immediately with the exterior columns and it was directed supported by the core. There is no way the core would be falling vertically instantaneously with the perimeter columns or trusses unless it had already been blown first.


Just sever the columns at one floor and then sever the columns at the floor below and you have now severed "one stories worth of support" allowing the cap (columns and everything else) to freefall onto the remaining floors.


I get that, but what do you think actually severed the columns? I don't know myself, but this is where I don't think nanothermite or lots of other possibilities could be considered insane. Thermite can cut through steel columns with the right configuration and it's virtually silent for an initiation, though there were plenty of recordings and witness testimonies of explosions before and after the initiation time frame to indicate other things being in there as well.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


According to NIST, not all columns failed at once, but as result of the heat deformation and weakening, impact damage and sagging floors pulling the columns, a large portion of the columns lost their supporting power. The weight carried by the severed column got redistributed over the other columns, causing an uneven distribution, and eventually caused more columns to fail. This continued until the moment that the columns that were still intact could no longer support the weight of all the severed columns. The top section tilted, destroying all columns, and from that moment on there was no other outcome than a collapse.

In summery, it is a bit like the game Jenga, where you pull out supports one by one until the tower collapses. At least, that is how I interpret the NIST report, it does not sound implausible to me.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

I'm talking severed columns. Severed columns causing the top cap to freefall one story.



Why not just buckling columns for the first few feet? And then breakage?

Why must they be severed right off the bat, or have I misinterpreted?

Bazant predicts that the columns would have severed due to horizontal shearing after only about 2 degrees of tilt. Do you agree?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


This is a pretty accurate layman's summary of what caused the collapses.

Truthers of course conflate this to mean that all the columns must be severed at once.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


If by truthers you mean engineers and architects, then yes. Thats the reason a controlled demolition takes planning and coordination. Of course in a controlled demolition you do not always want the structure to collapse into its own footprint. Sometimes you want to tilt it a certain way, when you take down a thin long tower for example. Not to mention this never before never again event cant be reproduced in a digital or analog simulation.

I trust indipendent unbiased sources over a biased dependent source which has been debunked several times over by indipendent groups and people. Sorry.

www.dailymotion.com...

I am sure those elderly gentlemen are just truthers who are in it to sell T-shirts and coffermugs

edit on 19-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That is what I've been trying to agree with you on. Initiation is in question.

All I said was once that "jolt" to use Bazant occurs, then there's not much to stop it.

I would rather not speculate how the "jolt" happened.

You seem to think I'm trying to argue the "OS". I am not. What I am trying to argue is that it has been shown that a pile driving collapse (verinage) is possible. Nothing more. Nothing less.


edit on 19-12-2010 by Nutter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why not just buckling columns for the first few feet? And then breakage?


I have not seen sufficient evidence to discount this as of yet. So, yes, I can agree with it if proven.


Why must they be severed right off the bat, or have I misinterpreted?


Severed would just give more of a jolt as buckled columns still have some of their strength.


Bazant predicts that the columns would have severed due to horizontal shearing after only about 2 degrees of tilt. Do you agree?


I'm not a metalurgist. I would not know off the bat.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
According to NIST, not all columns failed at once, but as result of the heat deformation and weakening, impact damage and sagging floors pulling the columns, a large portion of the columns lost their supporting power.


That's what their summaries may say, but their data never showed that, and I never said NIST didn't say that anyway so I don't know why you felt the need to post this. NIST sampled I forget how many core columns and only found 2 that had any evidence of being heated to 250 C or so. In their simulations it took such a ridiculous amount of heat energy to sufficiently heat those thick columns to their yield strength that they never tried to push column failure theory as the initiation mechanism and focused on the trusses instead. And the idea of those thin trusses pulling the core columns out of line would be so ridiculous that they didn't go there, and totally neglected to explain what would have happened to all the intact truss connections to the core.


The weight carried by the severed column got redistributed over the other columns, causing an uneven distribution, and eventually caused more columns to fail.


There was not enough overloading from the plane impacts or direct heating of the columns to cause this, even according to NIST. So NIST tried to say the trusses pulled more columns out of alignment and the buckling caused greater distribution that the remaining columns could hold. It's significant that they never actually proved that hypothesis, or offered any solid evidence for it at all, but that was their hypothesis anyway.

NIST never says the columns failing on their own was their "probable collapse sequence," they say the trusses sagging and exerting this mysterious "inward pull" that yanked the perimeter columns out-of-line is what did it. What I want to ask you is, how does a truss heating and sagging effectively make it heavier so that it exerts more "pull" force on the outer column? Does that make sense to you, or have you ever even thought about that?


The top section tilted, destroying all columns, and from that moment on there was no other outcome than a collapse.


First of all WTC1 had no noticeable tilt, only WTC2 did. Secondly "no other outcome than a collapse" fails to address what kind of collapse would necessarily ensue, how you have determined this, etc. You just assume nothing else would then happen but that's not scientific and it's never been how science actually works.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I would rather not speculate how the "jolt" happened.


I don't like speculating, either, but that doesn't mean I've already dismissed x number of possibilities. Why, for example, don't you think nanothermite could have eaten through the columns?


The guy in this video, a professional engineer using nothing but resources he had handy, manages to rig several simple devices that cut vertical steel columns, beams, bolts, etc., using about 1.5-4 pounds of a thermate compound each, with very interesting results to say the least.

Skip ahead to 10:00 to see him start setting things off and showing their results.



Some observations:

1) The first thing you see should be very familiar to all of us who debate these 9/11 theories.... yes? We should have all seen a video that looked like this before by now, except from the WTC on 9/11. Call it a coincidence if you want, but I'd need good reason to be so self-assured because it looks pretty damned identical to me.

2) It reduces beams to razor-thickness and eats holes in them, using a high-temperature corrosive reaction. This should also be very familiar to all of us. If not, look up appendix C of FEMA's report and you'll be staring at the same thing, also recovered from the WTC towers.

3) He also reproduces the dusty expulsions seen coming from both towers at numerous times and places before and during their destruction, that NIST referred to as "dust puffs" and etc. and could not explain, and he shows those excerpts from the NIST report as well.

4) He manages to fit one of his successful devices inside replica bolt-access holes from the WTC perimeter columns, showing they could be concealed completely inside the column inside the bolt-access hole.

5) He produces sounds that are consistent with witness testimony, as he shows.


What do you think about all this, Nutter? And he's not even using military-grade stuff, only what he can produce from commercially-available materials. There are a lot of "coincidental" connections between NIST and leading nano-energetics experts too, that Kevin Ryan has pointed out in articles online. Some of the same people who claim it would take so many millions of tons of conventional thermite (I'm exaggerating) also happen to be experts of nano-energetic materials and so would know that more powerful nano-particulate versions of these substances do in fact exist and have been studied by the DoD and Los Alamos. "Things that make you go -- HMMMM."



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why, for example, don't you think nanothermite could have eaten through the columns?


I have not discounted it.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


So what do you think of what Cole's been doing up there?


And I missed this post from hooper on page one when he was asked if he worked for NIST, had to respond because I half think he's being serious.



Originally posted by hooper
No, National Security Agency. Information Assurance.


I'm sure it's not bad work if you're getting paid but the NSA as a whole must be kind of failing considering how many people are figuring this stuff out anyway.

edit on 20-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's what their summaries may say, but their data never showed that, and I never said NIST didn't say that anyway so I don't know why you felt the need to post this. NIST sampled I forget how many core columns and only found 2 that had any evidence of being heated to 250 C or so. In their simulations it took such a ridiculous amount of heat energy to sufficiently heat those thick columns to their yield strength that they never tried to push column failure theory as the initiation mechanism and focused on the trusses instead. And the idea of those thin trusses pulling the core columns out of line would be so ridiculous that they didn't go there, and totally neglected to explain what would have happened to all the intact truss connections to the core.


I don't see why that is so ridiculous, but you can convince me by showing the physics. When you look at those demolition videos, two small cranes and a thin iron wire pulls the support away. It seems to me that they pretty thoroughly explain some parts did sag and other didn't, and how this caused one side of the building to fail more than the other, causing very uneven loads. When loads are very uneven, most weight is transferred to a few columns, despite how many intact ones there are. At that point the columns will fail one by one in a very short time frame.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There was not enough overloading from the plane impacts or direct heating of the columns to cause this, even according to NIST. So NIST tried to say the trusses pulled more columns out of alignment and the buckling caused greater distribution that the remaining columns could hold. It's significant that they never actually proved that hypothesis, or offered any solid evidence for it at all, but that was their hypothesis anyway.


You can actually see it happening on video. For me that is solid evidence.



NIST never says the columns failing on their own was their "probable collapse sequence," they say the trusses sagging and exerting this mysterious "inward pull" that yanked the perimeter columns out-of-line is what did it. What I want to ask you is, how does a truss heating and sagging effectively make it heavier so that it exerts more "pull" force on the outer column? Does that make sense to you, or have you ever even thought about that?


I explain that a few posts back with the poles and rope analogy, and it makes sense to me.


First of all WTC1 had no noticeable tilt, only WTC2 did. Secondly "no other outcome than a collapse" fails to address what kind of collapse would necessarily ensue, how you have determined this, etc. You just assume nothing else would then happen but that's not scientific and it's never been how science actually works.


I'm not really trying to defend NIST, and agree they failed to provide a model for the actual collapse. But for me it is just a logical consequence of the fact that the floors were never designed to carry the weight of the top section and even less to withstand the dynamic load as result of it falling down.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You have referred to the fact that NIST did not provide a model for actual collapse and I have seen others do that accompanied by suggestions that this was some sort of negligent omission. But in view of the fact that the collapses were chaos was that ever remotely feasible ?

Also, as the generally accepted wisdom in the engineering community is to agree that once collapse was initiated it was not going to stop, do you think it matters ?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You have referred to the fact that NIST did not provide a model for actual collapse and I have seen others do that accompanied by suggestions that this was some sort of negligent omission. But in view of the fact that the collapses were chaos was that ever remotely feasible ?

Also, as the generally accepted wisdom in the engineering community is to agree that once collapse was initiated it was not going to stop, do you think it matters ?


I know when I was in school doing exams, the teachers considered the workings more important than the answer..

The workings show understanding....

The answer may simply be a guess...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


To me it does not matter, and seemingly to the scientific community neither. Whether it is possible to model such a collapse accurately I can't really comment on.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Thanks for response. I would be interested to know whether modelling of the actual collapses of WTC 1 & 2 was ever possible. So if anyone is qualified to say ?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by -PLB-
 

Thanks for response. I would be interested to know whether modelling of the actual collapses of WTC 1 & 2 was ever possible. So if anyone is qualified to say ?


What do you mean by "ACTUAL COLLAPSE"?

It should be easy to model what the laws of physics dictate regarding what should have happened on the basis of known forces. My money says the entire building would NEVER COLLAPSE.

Suppose we did it a different way though. Think of the building as SEVEN 15 story sections. That would leave FIVE stories extra. Imagine we had the north tower with the top 15 stories floating in the air and a 5 story gap beneath which would be 60 feet. Below that would be the SIX intact 15 story sections which would be 90 LEVELS. So we drop the 15 stories. They would be in free fall for 2 seconds and impact the lower portion at 44 mph.

Now why shouldn't every engineering school in the country be able to simulate that? Now I think EVERYONE would have to agree the TOTALLY ELIMINATING Five stories is more damage than the airliner and fire could possible do. So if that simplified but worst case scenario would not completely collapse in the computer simulations then there is no way it could have happened because of an airliner on 9/11.

But do a little simple simulation in your head. Newton's 3rd law means the falling portion must endure as much destruction as it inflicts. So if we assume that because it gets so much velocity that it can destroy two 15 story sections as it destroys itself that would still leave four 15 story sections standing or 60 stories. more than half of the building. We need to know how much energy is required to crush each level of the building and the amount of energy increases all of the way down the building because it had to get stronger to hold more weight and it had to handle the moment of force created by the sheer forces of 100 mph wind on the upper portion of the tower. So not even being told the TONS of STEEL that were on each and every level after NINE YEARS is totally ridiculous.

Why haven't structural engineers been demanding that information? Why doesn't AE911Truth even talk about it?

www.youtube.com...

Of course physical models can't get their math wrong or have defective code. But then everyone will just say the WTC was not built of paper. ROFL

psik



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Boy, talk about over simplifying!!!


I love those building "portions"! Like it was a dinner sidedish.

The building was not a monolith. It was a very complex system of materials and connections.

I know you like to think of everything in terms of pyramids but real life is a little more complex than that.

Try again.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Boy, talk about over simplifying!!!


I love those building "portions"! Like it was a dinner sidedish.

The building was not a monolith. It was a very complex system of materials and connections.

I know you like to think of everything in terms of pyramids but real life is a little more complex than that.

Try again.


But I notice you didn't explain what was WRONG with the idea. Ridicule is all you can come up with. That demonstrates such brilliance.

Are you claiming that the bottom of the building didn't have to be stronger than the top to support more weight? Where is your model that is capable of total collapse by the way? Anyone can build mine and test it for themselves.

psik



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Nice going, throw some more ROFL HAHAHAHA HIHIHI and
in the mix and you debunked him for good.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join