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.

 

A question for 911 deniers, what about the NIST report was so conclusive and convincing for you to d

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I have discussed the ins and outs of this subject with career Professional Engineers (P.E. designation is a coveted thing), and nobody believes that a kerosene fire compromised the integrity of that steel structure.


Too bad that you have zero proof of this. Therefore, no one with a brain will believe you.


Nobody believes that the top part of that building would have fallen without torqueing on all three axes.


And nobody believes this either. It is obviously an argument from incredulity.


Nobody believes that the hundreds of beams all gave way simultaneously and thus allowed the "pancake" that we saw.


Another argument from incredulity.

Is this all you've got?


It still would have taken at least 12 hours to compromise the steel


This is a lie.


As some collapsed, others would have held on, and the top portion of that building would have began to torque and twist as more and more beams became overloaded.


This ia a lie.


Some sections would have ripped apart at the pre-designed junctions meant to giveway


Nothing is designed to give way.

Therefore, this is a lie.


and others would have sprung back elastically.


You have presented no basis to make this statement.

Therefore, this is a lie.


The building would have swayed violently,


You have presented no basis to make this statement.

Therefore, this is a lie.


The top part might have fallen to one side,


Bazant debunked this years ago.

Therefore this is a lie.


and the subsequent fatigue on the existing beams might have lead to further collapse in the opposite direction


You have presented no basis to make this statement.

Therefore, this is a lie.


If we give up all those unlikely scenarios, and we say maybe it did initiate the collapse, we still get a much different looking, violent, and uncoordinated collapse fraught with much swaying, buckling, and generalized disarray!


Your whole post is nothing but increduliy and repeating lies.

This why no one pays any attention to you.
edit on 18-12-2010 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Everything I said was directly from the NIST report and links were provided. It is very easy to type "lie," but it is much harder to into the report and pull out real information and post it here. I have directly quoted the NIST report on all of my linked posts. I have provided links to the pertinent NIST report pages.

I also stated that anything that is an opinion on my part comes from my degree work in Chemistry and Engineering. I also stated that the "everybody" that I referred to included a P.E. with 30 years experience, Engineering instructors at the University here, and fellow students.

If you feel that it is conclusive to just point and say "lie," then fine, but I am pretty sure that any educated reader will trust data and facts that come directly from the NIST report.

Please feel free to post evidence disputing what I have written. I look forward to it. Per Cassius, this thread was entirely designed to allow you a spot to post facts from the reports. I have been through the report many times, and I have not found any facts to support a collapse from heat, fire, or impact, but maybe you will have more luck at it.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




Scripting? Days in advance?


I said that was ONE of the possibilities. I also said your scenario was equally likely. Perhaps the Emergency Planners on the scene prepared several press releases throughout the day in order to be prepared in advance. Maybe one of those drafted releases was sent out by mistake. I have been in Emergency Planning situations, and this type of thing is possible. So many people are doing so many different tasks and trying to stay ahead of the situation, that anything is possible.

"Scripting" could have been days in advance, or maybe just hours in advance. The point is, that someone new the collapse was imminent or at least very likely, and the information got leaked by mistake.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Yeah, they are a no show so far. So no biggie. It might be because they are not interested to present their point of view, but prefer the drama of direct attacks, or the therm 911 denier does not sit well with them, sounding somewhat like holocaust denier. But I felt it was apt, since its pretty much the opposite of truther.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I notice you've never, ever bothered to present any actual evidence to validate the NIST report or any other official report. All you can do is make personal attacks?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I notice you've never, ever bothered to present any actual evidence to validate the NIST report or any other official report. All you can do is make personal attacks?


We can start here:

You say that the NIST tested the trusses and couldn't get them to collapse or some such garbage. There's a few problems with this.

1- NIST did the test to see if the fire proofing as spec'ed would perform as expected, since they found no documentation of it. It was never undertaken with the idea of proving that they could pull in the trusses on their own. And with good reason, as noted in point 3.

2- at least one of the tests were halted cuz they were afraid of damaging the testing equipment due to - the trusses failing.

3- NIST does not blame the inward bowing on the trusses pulling alone. Moderate temp, high load creep also has a hand in it.

You may have read the report, but as an electrical engineering student, you are clearly out of your league here. Therefore, the only conclusion that any rational person can come to is that when you ask for anyone to 'prove' this to you, that you are constructing - knowingly or unknowingly - a strawman.

Why would anyone try to counter a strawman argument, other than to point out your error?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Only one problem, Joey.

1) You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I asked for proof of NIST's hypothesis that the trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, and you were the one who start giving me all kinds of irrelevant garbage about fireproofing and everything but offering evidence for their hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I asked for proof of NIST's hypothesis that the trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, and you were the one who start giving me all kinds of irrelevant garbage about fireproofing and everything but offering evidence for their hypothesis.



Well, I tried correcting you about your strawman, and it didn't take.

Now, for me to show you the proof that you require, first show me that says that the trusses alone pulled in the ext columns. You can't.

Strawman.

Why attempt to offer proof of something that NIST doesn't claim?

Your own personal confusion leads you to ask these questions, not logic and knowledge. It is a problem you will continue to have until you actually educate yourself.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You don't know what a straw-man argument is, obviously. The OP asks for what evidence NIST presents for their theory, and you are only showing that you neither understand NIST's hypothesis nor what is scientifically required to prove a hypothesis is valid.

NIST describes the part of their hypothesis I am talking about in one of their FAQs:


14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?

Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact. Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces. Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.


wtc.nist.gov...


NIST states, "the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns," but never offered any evidence of this. Bringing up fireproofing, and all the other nonsense you have which is unrelated to what I'm asking, is the proper definition of attacking a straw-man instead of the actual question I am posing.


Here is a pretty picture for you to look at courtesy of NIST and PBS NOVA:



www.pbs.org...


What you see above happens very readily in computer simulations and with Looney-Tunes type animations, but never has it happened in physical reality, and especially not in any lab, even though NIST had every resource necessary to reproduce this basic hypothesized mechanism.
edit on 18-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


hypothesis : an unproved or unverified assumption that can be either used or accepted as probable in the light of established facts .

Key words : Probable Assumption . Translation : Most likely what happened .

Is there any part of that , that you don't understand ? Do you see now , how ludicrous it is for you to ask anyone to prove an hypothesis ?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I don't have an issue with the fact that NIST never proved their hypothesis. But you apparently do, when you come onto conspiracy theory forums to preach like everything has been figured out already and we're all wrong, no further investigation needed.

Do you see what I'm saying now?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



I don't have an issue with the fact that NIST never proved their hypothesis. But you apparently do, when you come onto conspiracy theory forums to preach like everything has been figured out already and we're all wrong, no further investigation needed.

Do you see what I'm saying now?



I don't have an issue with the fact that NIST never proved their hypothesis


Kool Beenz then , neither do I .


But you apparently do,


wRong , with a big R . Put up or shut up .


preach like everything has been figured out already


Wrong again , pull up just one post where I have ever preached this .


and we're all wrong,


Again , put your money where your mouth is .

And now , let's see what's behind door number four ...


no further investigation needed.


Four strikes , you're out . The first thing you need to do is peruse my posting history prior to making any future attempts at baseless claims that you cannot validate . Your above post contained nothing but lies that you railed against me , and was even furthermore , totally irrelevant .

Check , your move .



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


If you don't think we have the whole story and further investigation is needed, then the debate is over: we both agree.

And if you don't think the NIST report is conclusive, why are you even being antagonistic to the OP on this thread?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I think you're overlooking one key aspect in this thread: Truthers, not deniers, are the ones who believe a conspiracy took place on that day. Deniers, for the most part (apart from the few who happen to lurk in the 9/11 forum), don't even know that there is a question mark over what they were told happened that day. Therefore expecting them to flood in and explain why they believe the OS is a moot point. It's akin to asking why someone believes the sky is blue. They are not aware that there is any reason not to believe it.

From that stand-point, it is unlikely that you will find too many deniers lurking on ATS, however for those that are here, you need to concentrate simply on what they saw that day. To me the fact the a building collapsed merely because a plane flew into it, is suspicious, even more so when the same thing happened to a second building an hour later, but to the vast majority out there, this is a perfectly logical scenario. Couple this with the countless reports on the MSM reinforcing the validity of this notion, it is very difficult to argue that point with them. As far as Building 7 goes, from memory I don't remember it being heavily publicised at the time, so you probably cannot go down this path with them either.

The thing I do remember is the molten steel in the rubble. This in itself did not seem too unusual, but when I discovered the melting point of steel and the maximum temperature jet fuel can burn at, it seemed that this aspect is the only that one can use to convince the average Joe that something sinister went on that day.

As valid an argument as many of those presented in this thread and indeed on this forum are, in proving the OS story wrong, the man on the street simply does not have enough background to make the leap.

In all likelyhood, there is no argument that will convince the mainstream, however to have any hope, it needs to be simple and require as little background knowledge as possible. It definitely cannot rely on having read the OS, nor can it rely on being aware that a coverup may have taken place on that day. It can only rely on the mainstream vision that was televised around the world. Based on this, I believe the molten steel is the only avenue to achieve this unlkely goal.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by -mytym-
 



The thing I do remember is the molten steel in the rubble.


Wow! You actually, in person, saw the material, sampled it and then tested it to determine it was steel? Or do you really mean that you remember reading about on some conspiracy website?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



And if you don't think the NIST report is conclusive, why are you even being antagonistic to the OP on this thread?


I've never voiced an opinion on whether the NIST report was conclusive or inconclusive . The NIST report is an hypothesis . I don't recall ever having seen anyone from either side claim that it was conclusive , as everyone knows that an hypothesis is never concluded until it becomes proven as fact . Therefore , your point is moot .


why are you even being antagonistic to the OP on this thread?


I'm not , you are the one who caused me to show antagonism , if any was shown . The only issue I have with the OP , and the title of this thread , is that there is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the TM has reached that point by digesting material from the NIST report or some other fanciful "OS" report , which I have shown is not the case . It perturbs me that if I disagree with you then I have automatically been identified as some dumbass that has gleaned all of my understanding from some report that you loathe and live in contempt for .

It doesn't bother me like that . The NIST was a probable assumption . I fail to even see why there are arguments about it . The only real thing that the NIST serves , as far as I can tell , is that both sides use it as a tool when it is to their advantage . Both sides also attempt to use it as a weapon , when the need arises . It is common practice on this board , to defend the NIST in one thread and then shred it in another .

Therefore , to me , I feel the NIST is a poor choice for debate , as that's all it was , really , a debate . A debate on probable assumptions . This causes me to question why anyone would demand evidence from a source that , to my knowledge , never in fact claimed that the report was based on conclusive evidence . The report was based on probabilities . Probabilities do not equate to conclusions . Where is the problem with that ?

Who are any of you arguing with , anyway ? Who , in this thread or any other , has stated that they were convinced solely by the NIST , or any other report ?



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by -mytym-
 


Yes I know that there are not too many deniers here. Thats why I wanted to give them a thread where they can sketch out their version of the events. However the ones who did made a sketch of the sketch reducing it to tower go down because of pland and fire.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
I've never voiced an opinion on whether the NIST report was conclusive or inconclusive . The NIST report is an hypothesis . I don't recall ever having seen anyone from either side claim that it was conclusive , as everyone knows that an hypothesis is never concluded until it becomes proven as fact . Therefore , your point is moot .


My point was that the report's hypothesis wasn't a proven fact, and that they didn't offer any evidence to support their hypothesis. Why do you think I keep asking for NIST's proof? BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW THEY DIDN'T PUBLISH ANY!

How is that supposed to prove a "moot point" when all you did was repeat my own argument back to me as if you don't understand what any of these words even mean?


Maybe next we have to argue about the significance of "proof" and what the difference is between that and a "hypothesis," and whether or not we should have "facts" or "hypotheses" as to what happened to those buildings and 3000 people on 9/11? Maybe you can offer a "hypothesis" as to why NIST totally ignored the scores of witnesses that heard, saw, and were even injured by explosions in all 3 buildings throughout the entire morning too? I guess those people were just all "truthers" from the morning of 9/11 so obviously they were too insane or not human or something, to qualify to offer any testimony to the glorified OS believer.



The only issue I have with the OP , and the title of this thread , is that there is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the TM has reached that point by digesting material from the NIST report or some other fanciful "OS" report , which I have shown is not the case .


All you have shown in that regard is that your own opinions are also based on no actual evidence.

Some others have been confused into thinking NIST actually proved something, but while you seem to realize they didn't, you act like that actually justifies your position somehow.

You don't get any prizes for having opinions with nothing to back them up.


It is common practice on this board , to defend the NIST in one thread and then shred it in another .


You already admitted you haven't look at it yourself. Someone earlier in this thread summarized it accurately enough, that NIST's published data contradicts the conclusions and summaries in their report. This is the answer to why you perceive what you describe, if you ever bother to scrutinize the report yourself. Next time pay attention to whether someone is quoting actual data from NIST, or from one of their summaries or "interpretations" of the data and you will see the difference in who is posting which.


The report was based on probabilities . Probabilities do not equate to conclusions . Where is the problem with that ?


The problem is that the report wasn't "based on probabilities." Statistical probability had nothing to do with their report, just the word "probable" that they threw into their conclusions and summaries to cover their own asses in case anyone later came alone and completely blew them out of the water, which they could reasonably expect. But since you haven't even read the report by your own admission then what would the point even be in getting into an argument about that with you now? You would have to Google everything as we went along with the sole intention of "debunking" me, and I'd just as soon tell you to go look at it on your own time for yourself.


Who are any of you arguing with , anyway ? Who , in this thread or any other , has stated that they were convinced solely by the NIST , or any other report ?


Believe it or not there are zealots who believe that NIST's word is basically gospel. That is why this thread exists. If there weren't those kinds of people, the OP wouldn't have posted this. The reason none of them are posting here now is exactly the reason we have both agreed upon already: NIST didn't actually prove anything.


Go ahead and respond for the 3rd time in a row, telling me NIST didn't prove anything so therefore you're right.... I mean it's not like I'm telling you the same thing and it's my entire point or something... Might as well just keep repeating yourself so we can keep doing this through all of next year...

Yaaaawwwn...
edit on 18-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join