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.

 

Ron Brookman, Structural Engineer, Talks WTC7 Shear Studs

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Ron Brookman comments on the fact that NIST refuses to release data on how WTC7 was put together because it would refute their bogus model.

Further, NIST refuses to release the calculations that demonstrate how WTC7 collapsed the way it did.





posted on May, 24 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
This is where the debate about WTC-7 needs to be, in my opinion. Rather than propose theories we don't have the evidence to support, we should demand that the theories put forward in the 'Official Account' can withstand scrutiny. As things stand, without all of the relevant supporting information being made available (for people better qualified than I to analyse), it is not possible to say whether NIST's explanation for the collapse WTC-7, nor the 'official' explanation for any of the other events of that day, has merit or not.

As a side note, I wonder whether NIST would have taken so long to investigate, or been so reluctant to release their supporting evidence, if they had been asked from the outset to explain the collapse of WTC-7 in terms of a controlled demolition.

I suspect they would have found this a very simple exercise indeed.
edit on 24-5-2011 by coughymachine because: clarity



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
That data is being withheld is old news.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 



....we should demand that the theories put forward in the 'Official Account' can withstand scrutiny.


So where is the scrunity? The report has been out for years now and for all the alleged legions of technical professionals that disagree with the report I have yet to see a point by point critique of the work. And no crap about how they are witholding information. Everything you need is available. Let the critics construct their own models and show, with numbers and not youtube videos, why the NIST version is impossible.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And no crap about how they are witholding information. Everything you need is available.

Is it? If I were qualified and willing to attempt to accurately model the collapse of WTC-7, where would I go to get all the information I needed? And, by "all", I mean the exact same information NIST had access to.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I how love easily people can discredit a video because it is uploaded on the biggest social video platform available. You sheep make any excuse possible not to look at evidence.

The NIST shouldnt even be writing this report. This should have been handled in the 911 commission report.

Oh ya thats right the commission didnt have enough time or money for this.


edit on 24-5-2011 by readytorevolt because: vid



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Good clip.. I'm around shear studs all the time. His best point is the redundancy factor concerning the amount of columns, interior and perimeter, and the ones not affected, yet still the simultaneous failure that resulted in a nice level collapse. Doesn't make sense.
edit on 24-5-2011 by rstregooski because: sdgsdf



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by readytorevolt
 


Oh boy, do I sense someone getting their information from those damned fool conspiracy sites on the mission of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Here is the actual fact: the 9/11 CR was created to gather all the intelligence, all the facts, all the missed cues, all the oversites, all the errors in intel gathering prior to and right up to 9/11. Its task was to figure out what the hell happened and why our intelligence network failed to spot it. It was NOT tasked with investigating the impacts and collapses of the WTC buildings. THAT was tasked to FEMA first and then NIST. They were the people with the technical know-how and the ability to investigate it correctly and scientifically.

I dont know how many times it had to be clarified, but I cannot believe some people are still ignorant or not aware of what job was tasked to whom. Once again in a nutshell:
NIST/FEMA - Investigate the impacts, fires, and collapses of the WTC, and the structural responses of each building destroyed.
9/11 Commission Report - Investigate the intelligence and information leading up to and on 9/11, and who dropped the ball, who screwed up royal, and who and what should be to blame for allowing such an attack to happen, be it through sheer incompetence, bureaucracy, and/or miles and miles of red tape.

Please update your 9/11 Conspiracy folder to allow these corrections, so that we no longer have such incorrect information cropping up and clouding the facts. It annoys the hell out of me when people post such blatant falsehoods, especially if it has been cleared up and corrected hundreds of times here on ATS.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I don't understand how it could take SEVEN YEARS for a professional structural engineer to get interested in 9/11.

So he is one of the people that helped keep this from being resolved in 2002 by doing and saying NOTHING.

psik



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Ron Brookman comments on the fact that NIST refuses to release data on how WTC7 was put together because it would refute their bogus model.


Their bogus model refutes itself. Have you seen the graphics from their simulation? The ideal, computerized version of their theory looks much more chaotic than the actual "collapse" did. Usually in science and engineering it's the other way around, and the computer models are less chaotic than actual reality due to something called entropy, which states that energy is always lost in transfer in reality and furthermore it's not an ordered process but subject to chaos theory.

Either way the simulation shows completely different behavior than what was observed. That should be enough but, of course it isn't, because the sheep who came up with this crap have to either force themselves to believe it anyway or else shed their wool, and we already know the latter isn't going to happen.
edit on 24-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


structual enginneer or joe public, i think you will find that people are waking up to the idea all the time that the 911 thing stinks like a rat and thats why 10 years after the event people are still getting interested, all it may take is for someone to talk to someone else and say the right thing and that creates an interest



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Its obvious NOBODY has all the information or EVER will have all the information, 2 planes hit the towers and caused structural damage , the explosions would have caused damage the FIRES would have caused further problems for the integrity of the structure.

We dont have all the data for the total damage done and NEITHER side ever will.

For WT7 we have exactly the same problem structural damage was caused by falling debris ,fires went uncontrolled for many hours NEITHER side can know the full extent of the damage.

Once the collapse started it is a totally chaotic event no computer model will ever be able to show EXACTLY what happens and then when something happens that JOE PUBLIC cant understand because they have NO experience in the field guess what CONSPIRACY TIME.

Thousands upon thousands of engineers worldwide have NEVER questioned the collapse, building codes and design methods have been change all over the world due to 9/11 what does that tell you.

I still think a major problem was the floor connections in the twin towers and the fact if the bolts failed the floors could quite literally collapse inside the tube!
edit on 25-5-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Then why withhold data? Also who is presenting the conspiracy theory of saudis who attacked us because "they hate our freedoms"? And what were we bombing Afghanistan and Iraq for for 10 years if that conspiracy theory would be true? Why not go after those who funded alqaeda? And while we are at it, where did all this money for alqaeda come from and how did American Jews manage to be accepted not only as converts, but as leading figures within alqaeda? Quite a feat.
edit on 25-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by hooper
And no crap about how they are witholding information. Everything you need is available.

Is it? If I were qualified and willing to attempt to accurately model the collapse of WTC-7, where would I go to get all the information I needed? And, by "all", I mean the exact same information NIST had access to.


The report itself has all the information required. You could always petition the NIST itself. No more excuses.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


building codes and design methods have been change all over the world due to 9/11 what does that tell you



Could you give us just 2 examples of building codes that have been changed because of 9-11??
Please provide links.

Parker



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


The report itself has all the information required. You could always petition the NIST itself. No more excuses.


What part of this was confusing for you???

Ron Brookman comments on the fact that NIST refuses to release data on how WTC7 was put together because it would refute their bogus model.

The NIST is not releasing the info, even with FOIA request.

Parker



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by hooper


The report itself has all the information required. You could always petition the NIST itself. No more excuses.


What part of this was confusing for you???

Ron Brookman comments on the fact that NIST refuses to release data on how WTC7 was put together because it would refute their bogus model.

The NIST is not releasing the info, even with FOIA request.

Parker


Did you read his paper? He agrees that the NIST's assesment of the cause of the collapse of WTC 7:

"The NIST analyses demonstrated that it may be possible, under certain unlikely circumstances, for ordinary fire effects to cause severe damage and partial collapse of a high-rise steel structure"

Even he, with his extreme bias, can't get away from that reality.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by hooper


The report itself has all the information required. You could always petition the NIST itself. No more excuses.


What part of this was confusing for you???

Ron Brookman comments on the fact that NIST refuses to release data on how WTC7 was put together because it would refute their bogus model.

The NIST is not releasing the info, even with FOIA request.

Parker


Did you read his paper? He agrees that the NIST's assesment of the cause of the collapse of WTC 7:

"The NIST analyses demonstrated that it may be possible, under certain unlikely circumstances, for ordinary fire effects to cause severe damage and partial collapse of a high-rise steel structure"

Even he, with his extreme bias, can't get away from that reality.


I'm sorry, what part of "May be possible, under UNLIKELY circumstances" answers the questions about the NIST not releasing information that was requested through FOIA??

Parker



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

The report itself has all the information required. You could always petition the NIST itself. No more excuses.

ParkerCramer has already pointed out your error... there is no point in my repeating it.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParkerCramer

Originally posted by wmd_2008


building codes and design methods have been change all over the world due to 9/11 what does that tell you



Could you give us just 2 examples of building codes that have been changed because of 9-11??
Please provide links.

Parker


Have a look here

www.disaster-resource.com...

www.maritime-conferences.com...

Here is a paper by one of the biggest engineering practices Arup

www.arup.com...

This interesting quote from it

from the paper What is structural fire engineering?

from that this text!


Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.


Underlined above very interesting, thats now changing!

Look for yourself lots of links to changes in pratice, design and regulation round the world since 9/11


Modern hi rise buildings are no longer being built like the twin towers, the tube in tube design was great for open plan office floors but was probably part of its down fall



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join