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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you would like to see what a non biased group can do with true physics software, please take a look at this video.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you would like to see what a non biased group can do with true physics software, please take a look at this video.

www.youtube.com...


ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY ASS OFF !!!!!

That just goes to show that people don't know what NON-BIASED is.

Watch the core columns in that video. They don't move as the plane comes in.

If you search the NCSTAR1 report for oscillation you will find that they say that the south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact of the plane. The building then oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. The plane hit at the 81st floor so extrapolation computes that the building deflected FIFTEEN INCHES where the plane hit. So why don't the core columns deflect in the Purdue video?

That is the kind of stuff that pisses me off about threads like this. People pretending to be so knowledgeable and objective and can't figure out the obvious. Everybody is supposed to think what AUTHORITY tells us because we are so INTELLIGENT.

Lies can be programmed into computer simulations, in fact it is difficult to program them to tell THE WHOLE TRUTH. Physical models may be wrong but the cannot defy the Laws of Physics.

www.youtube.com...

It ain't as pretty but it took a lot fewer man hours than that junk from Purdue. The Purdue simulation does not show that changing the mass and its distribution alters the behavior.

psik



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
I must say, that for all of the talk of biased webpages and all, your proposed justification for this thread is somewhat perplexing.


I, for one, am not interested in proving that NIST's theory is plausible or as you say in fact probable. Furthermore, if you really want to prove its probability, you should start by convincing actual engineers and architects that it is in fact, plausible.


Seconded. I have seen enough of NIST shooting spray-on fireproofing with shotguns and the like to have all respect for them years ago. I have never seen NIST claim to have proven anything, and only the contrary, that they have opinions and "best guesses" based on their a priori conclusions, but nothing beyond that.

Even the OP admits "probable" is his goal, since he must already realize NIST actually proved nothing.

What else is there to say? If it's really that damned "probable," I'm all ears, but of course it's not nearly that simple. The sheer amount of information that NIST flat-out ignored is staggering in itself.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Strenght of concrete is measured in psi, not psf. The designs are based on weight per cubic yard.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You asked,

So why can't we find that information on ANY SKYSCRAPER..a model.So I gave you a model from Purdue. Very nice simulation actually, No one can deny that whether they believe it or not. Please take a look at the why this was done as well as how. Same reason there is NIST. To help civil engineers build better structures.

www.purdue.edu...



The scientific simulation, the completion of which was announced last September, required several test runs before the researchers were satisfied; the final test run required more than 80 hours of high-performance computing. The simulation depicts how a plane tore through several stories of the World Trade Center north tower within a half-second and found that the weight of the fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, knocking out essential structural columns within the building and removing fireproofing insulation from other support structures. The simulation used lines and dots to show the aircraft and building during the event.

To develop the new animated visualization, Voicu Popescu, an assistant professor of computer science, developed a translator application that creates a link between computer simulations and computer visualization systems to automatically translate simulation data into a 3-D animation scene.

"This translator is scalable and can be used in other simulations," Popescu says.


The final test run required 80 hours of computing time. You give me a video of rubbers bands and Popsicle sticks? MIT....clever.

edit on 18-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Physical models may be wrong but the cannot defy the Laws of Physics.


Wrong = useless.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Yeah sure, OP, let me waste my time reading and analyzing 10,000 pages of agenda driven NeoCon garbage to disprove your delusional fantasies about how the Towers collapsed. Good luck with that!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Yeah sure, OP, let me waste my time reading and analyzing 10,000 pages of agenda driven NeoCon garbage to disprove your delusional fantasies about how the Towers collapsed. Good luck with that!

I see, and presumably that means you have a theory of equal detail about how they collapsed that has some evidence to support it?

Would you care to post it somewhere? There are a lot of people waiting to see one.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to say? If it's really that damned "probable," I'm all ears, but of course it's not nearly that simple. The sheer amount of information that NIST flat-out ignored is staggering in itself.

This is a thread for discussion, not preaching. I want to go through each section of the report and find exactly what people have issue with.

Once there's a consensus on what information we can trust, then we can look at the alternative options for the information we disagree on.

I'm not demanding NIST is correct, but I have yet to see many serious challenges for their investigation. Even the best I have come across tend to be quite trivial, nobody has come together to actually set out experimental criteria that I know of.

These were the points we have yet to discuss, there's no point discussing whether or not the collapse was possible, if we don't even agree about the temperature of the fires:

  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  • These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  • Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  • Insulation damage was very likely



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This is a thread for discussion, not preaching. I want to go through each section of the report and find exactly what people have issue with.


Good luck with that! No one here is every going to go near that report in any kind of detail, it scares the hell out of them! In another conspiracy forum I tried to get someone to give a point by point critique of the report, I was subsequently banned. The problem is that the report explains the collapse as a result of the plane impact and fires, once that is done if you have another agenda then you have two choices - technically disprove the report which they can't do, or cover yourself with generalizations.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
To that end, here are the first topics, quoted from the 'engineer cuts steel' thread:
  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  • These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  • Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  • Insulation damage was very likely


Please detail any and all complaints with these points, and we can discuss then in a calm and civilised manner. Cheers!


Thing is none of your 'topics' gets to the heart of the matter.

You could prove NIST was correct in all those points, but it doesn't prove that the towers could globally collapse.

So what IF trusses did sag? They can not put a pulling force on the columns they're attached to. IF the trusses sagged it was because heat causes expansion. IF the trusses were able to create a pulling force on columns they would first have created a pushing force when they expanded. They couldn't do either so they did the only thing they could do they SAGGED down.

So what IF the fires burned long enough to effect steel? Most of the buildings steel was not effected and would maintain their ability to hold up the building. (hypothetical) Lets say the trusses collapsed on floor 81 and dropped on floor 80, why would that cause the whole top section of floors to drop? The floors were independently attached to the columns with many trusses, that would all have to fail equally for the whole floor to drop. If one floor dropped it doesn't mean all the floors above would also drop.

A lot of debunkers want you to think the whole top section would drop from failure of one or two floor trusses. For the whole top section to drop as one the central core and outer mesh would all have to fail also, at the same time to create an instant collapse. This is just not logical.

Uninsulated steel would heat up faster than insulated steel, but it still doesn't automatically mean the building would completely collapse. Same with damaged insulation.

The problem isn't whether fire can make steel weaken and fail over time, it can. The problem is the amount of steel, and the length the fires burned for.

The fact that you seem to think that once a few trusses failed then the complete collapse of the building was inevitable shows a lack of understanding of reality. You may be an expert on what NIST claims, but it doesn't mean NIST was telling you the truth, or is even physically possible.

NIST didn't even cover the actually collapse, why? Because they couldn't without revealing the truth, better to pretend it doesn't matter and hope no one questions to much. This is why they rejected the pancake/progressive collapse, because they know people would see through it instantly. Progressive collapse would require there to be more mass in the footprints than there was. If the mass is ejected out of the footprint then there is no mass to do any crushing. Newtons laws of motion tell us that a smaller mass can not destroy a larger mass. We know the floors must have been destroyed as the building collapsed (no floors left post collapse and well we saw all the dust and ejected mass during the collapse), so it was either floors destroying floors which would mean the top would run out of floors before the bottom was destroyed (equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation), or another energy was involved.

You all fail when it comes to disusing physics in the real world, to the point some of debunkers claiming a new phenomena is needed to explain the collapses. A collapse is a simple resistance and momentum problem, easily explained by Newtons laws of motion.

And I know most debunkers do not understand the laws of motion. I, and others, have proved this with easy questions that go unanswered, either because you don't know or you realise it contradicts your claims.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Thing is none of your 'topics' gets to the heart of the matter.

You could prove NIST was correct in all those points, but it doesn't prove that the towers could globally collapse.

That's true. I don't want to cut out the rest of your post without good reason, but the point is that we go through things that we agree with, then get to the bits where we disagree.

For example, you disagree about the trusses, and we can definitely have a good discussion on whether they can or cannot exert an inward force. However, it is worthless to discuss that, if you think they deflected by 2" and I think they deflected by 20". The difference in the deflection means that we're arguing from different positions on the inward force.


And I know most debunkers do not understand the laws of motion. I, and others, have proved this with easy questions that go unanswered, either because you don't know or you realise it contradicts your claims.

I promise you that if you engage with me and discuss the topics in order so we can debate what we agree or disagree on, that I will answer any question you pose about the laws of motion, or any other such physical equation I am capable of handling. You can PM me if I am absent, pretty sure that e-mails me.

I appreciate you spent a lot of time on the response, and I don't want to appear as if I am simply dismissing it. I am aware that we have our differences, and I do want to talk about them. If I replied point by point though, we'd end up with a huge spidery thread just like every other one.

I want this thread to be useful

edit on 18/4/11 by exponent because: minor textual correction



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Physical models may be wrong but the cannot defy the Laws of Physics.


Wrong = useless.


I said MAY. So where is anybody's model that can collapse completely?

There are none. You can just talk. NINE YEARS of endless semantic crap. A $20,000,000 report that cannot specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. What a JOKE!

psik



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I said MAY. So where is anybody's model that can collapse completely?

It's unlikely the technology exists to model such a thing. I'm certainly not aware of it.


There are none. You can just talk. NINE YEARS of endless semantic crap. A $20,000,000 report that cannot specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. What a JOKE!

I gave you the required density figures to calculate the mass of the concrete on most major levels, and Gregory Urich produced a good look at the available information here: www.journalof911studies.com...

Do you have any comments on the 4 points I listed? Do you disagree with them?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
What else is there to say? If it's really that damned "probable," I'm all ears, but of course it's not nearly that simple. The sheer amount of information that NIST flat-out ignored is staggering in itself.

This is a thread for discussion, not preaching. I want to go through each section of the report and find exactly what people have issue with.


You can discuss it all you want, but the critical facts that will remain even at the end of your discussion, and I can promise you this, will be that

1) They still didn't actually prove what happened, and
2) They completely ignore tons of evidence, not least of which scores of witness testimonies to explosions, which are never even so much as mentioned in passing.


Once there's a consensus on what information we can trust, then we can look at the alternative options for the information we disagree on.


I already trust that they believe their guesses are "probable," or at least most people at NIST probably believe that.


Look at what we already agree on. That's significant enough already. They didn't actually prove anything.

And what they blatantly ignored was even more significant.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point was if they could give a total for the steel and other people have totals for concrete why doesn't the NCSTAR1 report have it? Why should we need to do all of that calculating. They had 3 years and $20,000,000 and they couldn't tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level. Doesn't every level of every skyscraper in the world have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?

Certainly, but here's the reason why, and I really want to make sure you don't take this the wrong way:

It's none of your business.

Now that's not me saying that, i'm not trying to insult you, but the fact of the matter is that these are private buildings owned by private companies, the design and construction of their buildings is private to them. They have no obligation to release it to the public, as they will have paid an awful lot of money from an architect for that.

Now, I am sure NIST could have totalled it up if they had wanted to, but that's neither here nor there. If they listed every single fact they gathered in detail the report would be 40,000 pages long and you still probably wouldn't read it.


They can tell us the tons of luggage that was on each plane but they can't tell us the tons of steel that was on each level that had to be strong enough to support the buildings for THIRTY YEARS.

There is one funny thing about doing searches in the NCSTAR1 report. You start to notice that the same sentence and the same paragraph is used again and again and again. I gave up trying to to keep track of how many times I noticed this. The tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level would amount to 232 numbers for each building. That would hardly amount to much in 10,000 pages. So give us more good reasons why people really should not pay attention to the NIST report while at the same time saying it should be read and contains worthwhile information.

The nation that put men on the Moon can't tell the entire world the distributions of steel and concrete in buildings designed before 1969 but expects people to believe an airliner could obliterate a building TWO THOUSAND TIMES its mass in less than ONE HOUR.

psik



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Nutter
 


We are not talking about peace, we are talking about physics so what is your point?

www.nist.gov...

As far as the president, I think he uses his to roll blunts...


Could you name their specific roles in producing the NCSTAR1 report please and not just a list of 3 nobel prize winners?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Doesn't every level of every skyscraper in the world have to be strong enough to support all of the weight above?


Only the columns hold the weight of the building above. The weight of the floors are distributed to the columns and as such are seperate.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I know it's not an ideal situation to have to do the calculations by hand, but enough information appears to be there, certainly to get to the level of accuracy that a non professional group will be able to simulate.


Not all the information is there to perform an actual finite element analysis. What about the professional groups who want to study a building that is not even in existence anymore? Nope, natonal security.

That's my problem with this whole "investigation". The secrets.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you would like to see what a non biased group can do with true physics software, please take a look at this video.

www.youtube.com...



Based on true physics? Are you watching the same video that shows thin slices of shredded plane skin (aluminum for the most part) slicing through those heavy core columns?

Please. Next try?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join