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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 13
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I am fed up with seeing your reference to the destruction of a " fifty ton hydraulic press " in the sub-basement of the North Tower as though it is some monumental cataclysmic thing. Are you supposing such a machine weighs fifty tons ? If so, you couldn't be more wrong; I could put one in my garage and still have plenty of room for my car :-

www.justoffbase.co.uk...

The fifty tons relates to the pressure it can exert.




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Just BELIEVE and you don't need data about the REAL WORLD.

Huh? I don't need "data" to know that an apple falls when you drop it. I don't need "data" to know that water flows downhill.

Like all of the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the core that connected the 47 columns.

So what is it you are doing to gather this information? Have you contacted anyone? What research, besides Google, have you actually performed to satisfy what you believe to be the critical lynch pin proving the "inside job"?


I don't talk about "Inside Jobs" because I don't care about conspiracy crap.

First of all the NIST should have put the data in their 10,000 page report in the first place. They admit in two places that the distribution of mass in the WTC is necessary to analyze the impact.

So EVERYONE claiming to understand physics is supposed to actually be too dumb to figure out what data was necessary to solve the problem in the first place? So the NIST could leave out whatever they wanted and no one was supposed to notice? So actually all of the people that have not been asking about it have been demonstrating incompetence.

I emailed Purdue because of their "so called" SCIENTIFIC Simulation that shows horizontal beams in the core. I got responses from two men, Chris Hoffman and another guy with an east European name I don't recall. They both told me to contact Prof. Sozen. But I had already emailed him too. NO RESPONSE FROM SOZEN. The Purdue simulation does not have the core columns move due to impact while the NIST has empirical data showing the south tower moved. So it looks like Purdue has STUPID Science.

So the information that should show the collapse was impossible is the information that has been disappeared. The so called Truth Movement should be after engineering schools instead of harassing people on the street with "Inside Job" crap.

psik



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I don't talk about "Inside Jobs" because I don't care about conspiracy crap.

Sure.



First of all the NIST should have put the data in their 10,000 page report in the first place. They admit in two places that the distribution of mass in the WTC is necessary to analyze the impact.

Fine, just give the reference where the NIST says they needed to know the distribution of steel and concrete on each level.

So EVERYONE claiming to understand physics is supposed to actually be too dumb to figure out what data was necessary to solve the problem in the first place?

Whats "the problem"?

So the NIST could leave out whatever they wanted and no one was supposed to notice?

So you admit that you are beginning to "notice" things that aren't really there?

So actually all of the people that have not been asking about it have been demonstrating incompetence.

Yet,despite the extremely high level of incompetence, the world keeps marching on. We keep building and moving and progressing even though, according to you, everyone but you is a complete moron.

I emailed Purdue because of their "so called" SCIENTIFIC Simulation that shows horizontal beams in the core. I got responses from two men, Chris Hoffman and another guy with an east European name I don't recall. They both told me to contact Prof. Sozen. But I had already emailed him too. NO RESPONSE FROM SOZEN. The Purdue simulation does not have the core columns move due to impact while the NIST has empirical data showing the south tower moved. So it looks like Purdue has STUPID Science.

Well, the term "stupid science" does come to mind when I read this, but I think for different reasons.
The tower moved due to impact but the Purdue simulation was intended to show the extend of destruction caused by the impact, not every effect of the impact. I am sure a number of windows shattered outside the impact zone, that wasn't show in the Purdue video, is that another expample of stupid?

So the information that should show the collapse was impossible is the information that has been disappeared.

Wow. So the "data" that you propose PROVES the collapse was impossible just happens to have been "disappeared". What are the odds of that happening, huh?

The so called Truth Movement should be after engineering schools instead of harassing people on the street with "Inside Job" crap.

Yeah, they should. I would love to see that.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

[[[ First of all the NIST should have put the data in their 10,000 page report in the first place. They admit in two places that the distribution of mass in the WTC is necessary to analyze the impact. ]]]

Fine, just give the reference where the NIST says they needed to know the distribution of steel and concrete on each level.


Curious how you changed that with your idiotic rhetorical gamesmanship.

I said "distribution of mass" which is how the NIST said it.

But doesn't steel have mass? Doesn't concrete have mass? I wasn't claiming that the NIST said it the way I did. But how can we get accurate distribution of mass data without the steel and concrete? But the oscillation of the building will be affected by the amount of each. The steel made it possible for the building to flex not the concrete. But the concrete added to the inertia.

You are playing this game like a lawyer as though it is words that matter.

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about words. But not having done the physics shows the NIST is full of crap.

psik



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




Well, I was going to address those points one by one and then realized that not one of them was true. So I guess the response to your proposition is really quite simple, since nothing you proposed is true than none of it need be acconted for. Done.


All I can say is well done Jim, you have put together a strong and succinct body of facts that our resident agents cannot touch. While their role can be seen as sad and frustrating, it is important in the development of a strong reviewed argument and case. This does take h2 out of the equation. While the purpose of h1 is to be complete, I have seen no evidence to support this. There is evidence of h3 and it has developed a strong body of evidence behind it. As for what the other conventional explosive may have been it is still in doubt. Without any radiological evidence h4 can also be removed as this would have been impossible to mask if a nuclear device was used. h5 & h6 may possibly have been used with h3 as the other conventional explosive component. With some aspects of the military associated to the "inside job" it is currently difficult to say exactly what kind of technology was used in the destruction.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by hooper
 




Well, I was going to address those points one by one and then realized that not one of them was true. So I guess the response to your proposition is really quite simple, since nothing you proposed is true than none of it need be acconted for. Done.


All I can say is well done Jim, you have put together a strong and succinct body of facts that our resident agents cannot touch


.


Perhaps you didn't understand Hooper's response. None of JimFetzer's assertions are true so disproving lies is a waste of time.

Whatever lies may be, nobody in their right mind can confuse them as being a "succinct body of facts"



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Curious how you changed that with your idiotic rhetorical gamesmanship.

In other words, you realize that your rambling, inconsistent demands were actually self-defeating?

I said "distribution of mass" which is how the NIST said it.

Said "it" where? Just need page and paragraph.

But doesn't steel have mass? Doesn't concrete have mass? I wasn't claiming that the NIST said it the way I did.

Sometimes, when the other party doesn't say it "the way" you said it, it means they actually didn't say it.

But how can we get accurate distribution of mass data without the steel and concrete? But the oscillation of the building will be affected by the amount of each.

Are you saying that concrete "mass" is different then steel "mass"? Tell me, does a pound of concrete weigh more than a pound of steel?

The steel made it possible for the building to flex not the concrete. But the concrete added to the inertia.

No, the deisgn of the building is what allowed it to flex. Not the material. You can have (and often do) very rigid structures made of the same materials with no flex, not because of the material but because of the design.

You are playing this game like a lawyer as though it is words that matter.

To the contrary, this is a written medium, words are all we have. Choose them as best you can.

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about words.

But its your words that express your "physics".

But not having done the physics shows the NIST is full of crap.

And yet we all push on.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 




Perhaps you didn't understand Hooper's response. None of JimFetzer's assertions are true so disproving lies is a waste of time. Whatever lies may be, nobody in their right mind can confuse them as being a "succinct body of facts"


I understand Hooper's response completely. I am aware of credibility by reading his many comments. If there where flaws in Jim's comments he would have picked at and discredited them. In Hooper's black is white world, for him to imply none of Jim's statements is true, in reality means that they are all true. I have been around long enough to see past these silly word games.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Said "it" where? Just need page and paragraph.


NIST NCSTAR 1-5D
Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks


2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.


wtc.nist.gov...

Page 40 (pdf pg 74)

It looks like the NCSTAR1 report harder to find than it used to be. The response time is a lot slower too.

NCSTAR 1-2 Ch 1-6 == mass distribution


The densities of specific materials were scaled to obtain the desired magnitudes for the service live loads and superimposed dead loads. The densities of the tower contents (workstations and gypsum walls) were scaled by the appropriate ratios to obtain the desired distribution of live loads in the core and truss floor areas. The densities of all the remaining tower structural components were scaled proportionately to obtain the desired superimposed dead loads. These additional loads were important for obtaining an accurate mass distribution in the towers and inertial effects in the impact response. The in-service live load used was assumed to be 25 percent of the design live load on the floors inside and outside the core.
The in-service live load was selected based on a survey of live loads in office buildings (Culver 1976) and on engineering judgment. The uncertainty in the amount of in-service live load was accounted for in the sensitivity analyses (Chapter 8 of NIST NCSTAR 1-2B) and in the global impact simulations (Chapter 7
of this report).


NCSTAR 1-2B Chap 1 thru 8 == mass distribution


E.8 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES
The objectives of the uncertainty analyses were to assess the effect of uncertainties associated with the aircraft and WTC towers parameters on the level of damage to the towers after impact and to determine the most influential modeling parameters that affect the damage estimates. Uncertainty arises in these analyses from the following key parameters:

• Aircraft impact parameters: aircraft speed, horizontal and vertical angles of incidence, orientation, and location of impact.
• Material properties: high strain rate material constitutive behavior and failure criteria for the towers and the aircraft.
• Aircraft mass and stiffness properties, and the jet fuel distribution in the aircraft.
• Tower parameters: structural strength and mass distribution, connection and joint positions relative to impact and joint failure behavior.
• Nonstructural building contents that may share in absorbing energy imparted by the aircraft impact.

An important source of uncertainty that is not listed in these key parameters is the inaccuracy associated with mathematical or numerical models. The inaccuracies of models, also known as modeling errors, are deterministic in nature, but are often treated as random variables to characterize the effects of the analysis methodologies on the calculated response. All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.




= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NCSTAR 1-2B Chap 9 thru 11 == mass distribution

11.8 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSES
The objectives of the uncertainty analyses were to assess the effect of uncertainties associated with the aircraft and WTC towers parameters on the level of damage to the towers after impact and to determine the most influential modeling parameters that affect the damage estimates. Uncertainty arises in these analyses from the following key parameters: (1) aircraft impact parameters (speed, horizontal and vertical angles of incidence, orientation, and location of impact), (2) material properties and failure criteria for the towers and the aircraft, (3) aircraft parameters (mass and stiffness properties, and jet fuel distribution), (4) tower parameters (structural strength and mass distribution, connections behavior), and (5) nonstructural building contents that may share in absorbing energy imparted by the aircraft impact.
Another important source of uncertainty is the inaccuracy associated with mathematical or numerical models. These uncertainties, also known as modeling errors, are deterministic in nature, but are often treated as random variables to characterize the effects of the analysis methodologies on the calculated response. All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.


psik



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 




Perhaps you didn't understand Hooper's response. None of JimFetzer's assertions are true so disproving lies is a waste of time. Whatever lies may be, nobody in their right mind can confuse them as being a "succinct body of facts"


I understand Hooper's response completely. I am aware of credibility by reading his many comments. If there where flaws in Jim's comments he would have picked at and discredited them. In Hooper's black is white world, for him to imply none of Jim's statements is true, in reality means that they are all true. I have been around long enough to see past these silly word games.


In 'truther' world, black is white, up is down, etc. As I said previously "None of JimFetzer's assertions are true so disproving lies is a waste of time". To waste one's time on repeatedly discrediting obvious 'truther' lies is a waste of anybody's time.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 




In 'truther' world, black is white, up is down, etc. As I said previously "None of JimFetzer's assertions are true so disproving lies is a waste of time". To waste one's time on repeatedly discrediting obvious 'truther' lies is a waste of anybody's time.


Exactly, looks like you have a seconder Jim.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
No, it did not weight 50-tones but had the capacity to apply that much pressure, as I understand it. Would that I were able to answer every question that arises without other distractions. I hope that helps.

reply to post by Alfie1
 



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
That you make a blanket denial of thirteen findings by experts across different domains without any supporting evidence or argument tells me that you are completely at a loss, for which the most obvious explanation is that you have no rebuttal because they are true. Denials are not arguments.

reply to post by hooper
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
These are among the most feeble, weak, and inadequate replies I have even encountered. Unbelievable.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
These ARE the most feeble, weak, and inadequate replies I have even encountered. Unbelievable.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Hooper, what are you doing here? If you don't understand the issues better than this, what is the point? Take a good look at these photographs and ask if what you are looking at could possibly be the result of a gravity-driven collapse? If anything is obvious, it is that what we see here is not a collapse: jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

reply to post by hooper
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Actually, while I appreciate many of kwakakev's posts, only
the third of these is strongly supported, when you study the
evidence, where this thread was introduced to deal with it.
See my thread, "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?",
on several and check out "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?" for
more related to them all: twilightpines.com...

What can be considered as close to 100% proven as possible:
One aeroplane went into WTC 1 and the building fell shortly after.
One aeroplane went into WTC 2 and the building fell shortly after.
WTC fell for unknown reasons.
Something hit the pentagon.
One aeroplane broke apart

reply to post by kwakakev
 



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I have made some video analysis to debunk the no plane theory in relation to the second plane strike at WTC www.abovetopsecret.com... . I will have a look at your link and get back to you soon.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
That you make a blanket denial of thirteen findings by experts across different domains without any supporting evidence or argument tells me that you are completely at a loss, for which the most obvious explanation is that you have no rebuttal because they are true. Denials are not arguments.

reply to post by hooper
 



edit on 18-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)


All of your 13 lies have been discredited time and time and time again. That's why its almost a decade later and no one is paying you or your "theories" any attention.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



All of these variables did not necessarily have a significant effect on the estimated impact damage to the WTC towers.


Done. That is all.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join