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 towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 45
17
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


It's from the link in my previous post:


As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.


It's fairly simple stuff here. Not a lot to comprehend.


Again, the question to me I find most significant is why NIST investigators were unable to lay their hands on the methods utilized by the developers of WTC...Of course, progress has been made in analytical methods to come to conclusions about what type of damage would occur...ultimately, all these paragraphs state, however, is that the resultant INITIAL structural damage to the buildings match what would happen if a 767 hit them...it does not state the collapse(s) was a result of the impact...




posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Well, then you need to get right on the horn and tell all these engineering and architectural firms to immediately cease and desist this practice...do not waste this vital information on me...again, I am no expert...
edit on 16-10-2011 by jeichelberg because: misspelled waste...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Not to mention all the other sciences that rely on scale modeling to either prove or disprove theory, such as geology, astronomy, etc...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


You are under the delusion that a paint thin layer of thermite would actually do something to the steel. It has been calculated, that in the real world, it would only raise the temperature of the steel it was painted on by an average 1 deg.

Your nano thermite was manufactured by the Pittsburgh Paint Company and painted on the floor trusses to keep them from oxidising.

To me it's more interesting the amount of Dihydrogen Monoxide found in the World trade centre rubble. Make no mistake Dihydrogen monoxide was found !!!




Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Major chemical component of chemtrails

edit on 16-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Well, then you need to get right on the horn and tell all these engineering and architectural firms to immediately cease and desist this practice...do not waste this vital information on me...again, I am no expert...
edit on 16-10-2011 by jeichelberg because: misspelled waste...


They are aware of it. That's why they use numbers instead of models to calculate loads. Thats also why when we load test an aircraft, we have to take a real plane, turn it up side down and place sandbags on the wings until it breaks. We cant just use a smaller model.

Did you read the Square Cube Law it's been around since Galileo.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 



Thats also why when we load test an aircraft, we have to take a real plane, turn it up side down and place sandbags on the wings until it breaks.


Or, do it the way Boeing does, in the video below.

This relates when comparing full-scale engineering design, to the mathematics of engineering. Buildings aren't airplanes, but principle's similar.

The math geeks had the numbers calculated, but full-scale tests are proof in the pudding. Thing is, most skyscraper designs aren't built first, then tested to destruction in order to check the maths.....then re-built for the final time, to ready for occupancy.









edit on Sun 16 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Yes. Square cube law is the key here. This is THE reason that scale models aren't used to design or test structural performance. Well that and the general unavailability of tiny facsimiles of structural steel members and trusses. Then again there is no way to scale down concrete, because it is not a homogeneous substance: the pebbles in the mix would be larger than the size of the slab at 1:100 scale.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Now I like a few others here understand how Ron Paul feels like when he speaks the truth and no one hears because they are distracted by the argument between the two factions.

But I'll keep saying that there's no argument about building 7's collapse and since there's no argument, building 1 and 2's falls are guilty by proxy....Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou
Now I like a few others here understand how Ron Paul feels like when he speaks the truth and no one hears because they are distracted by the argument between the two factions.

But I'll keep saying that there's no argument about building 7's collapse and since there's no argument, building 1 and 2's falls are guilty by proxy....Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.


WTC 7 is only important to you and others because you've been lied to. It's that simple. You are being lied to by omission and by false statements of fact.

WTC 7 is in no way anomalous. Just ask the firefighters who were there. They knew the thing was going to collapse for HOURS. HOURS, and they had the place evacuated for that purpose.

Anything present in the building is just a coincidence, honestly. The World Trade Complex was filled with important things because it was a major center for these things. It's expected for there to be something.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou
 



Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.


Still and all, the investigations and subsequent prosecutions continued on....

There are such concepts as backing up data on computers, at many sites besides just one main location.

Furthermore, if one wishes to go down the road of "destroying evidence" (odd concept, in those cases, since the government seemed keen on prosecuting them), just having a building collapse seems like one of the most inefficient methods possible.

Wouldn't a raging fire on every floor, left unchecked for several days do a better job? Because, after a collapse, you have to guarantee that everything you wished destroyed, would not still be there to be found.

WTC 7 as a "planned" demo just fails the logic test, for those and other reasons....not to mention the facts dispute the "demolition theory" as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou
 


Only Truthers care about building 7, Every time you cry "what about building 7 "you look even more delusional. Building 7 collapsed because of fire. There was no thermite. There were no explosives. Nobody was killed in building 7. There is no mystery.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...



You really should google Square Cube Law


That is why I used paper supports and made them as weak as possible. You can't scale to the WTC without accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding it? Why didn't all of the physicists demand it in 2002?

psik
edit on 16-10-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I am under no delusion that thermite was found...It was found...I have no idea what thermite does or does not do to steel...I only know it is used in some types of explosive charges...I also have no need to google the information you have presented...I am quite confident scale modeling is still used in applications across all sciences, including engineering...I have said what I have to say here and I am through...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...



You really should google Square Cube Law


That is why I used paper supports and made them as weak as possible. You can't scale to the WTC without accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding it? Why didn't all of the physicists demand it in 2002?

psik
edit on 16-10-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


Your model fails under compression. The World Trade Centers failed under shear.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
I am under no delusion that thermite was found...It was found...I have no idea what thermite does or does not do to steel...I only know it is used in some types of explosive charges...I also have no need to google the information you have presented...I am quite confident scale modeling is still used in applications across all sciences, including engineering...I have said what I have to say here and I am through...


Red, Pittsburg Paint Company, primer paint chips from the floor trusses were found in the dust.

Don't worry Truther Physics does not include the square cube law so you don't need to Google it.

Have fun in Truther World.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I'm sort of confused on what you're trying to say.

I didn't indicate it, but I guess I will and that is that it is obvious that building 7 came down in controlled demo. It takes at least weeks if not months to plan such a thing and it sounds like we're on the same wavelength on this.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


You say there was no thermite because........what.....they tested and found none?

No actually, they left it alone both times there was an investigation. You can't convince truthers (by definition) that a building will collapse in a controlled demo from a fire here and a fire there. Especially when you look at all the surrounding buildings closest to towers 1 and 2. Why didn't they come completely down? No. They're left half-standing from what you would expect from pyroclastic debris close to the towers. If they came down like building 7, you might have a case.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...



You really should google Square Cube Law


That is why I used paper supports and made them as weak as possible. You can't scale to the WTC without accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding it? Why didn't all of the physicists demand it in 2002?

psik
edit on 16-10-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)


Your model fails under compression. The World Trade Centers failed under shear.


My model fails to fail under compression.

The south tower sheared and the top tilted 22 degrees. There is no explanation for why the top 29 stories did not fall down the side.

The top 15 stories of the north tower had to have compressed 90+. [assuming nothing else was responsible] The compression of the core of the north tower has to be explained.

psik



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou
 



Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.


Still and all, the investigations and subsequent prosecutions continued on....

There are such concepts as backing up data on computers, at many sites besides just one main location.

Furthermore, if one wishes to go down the road of "destroying evidence" (odd concept, in those cases, since the government seemed keen on prosecuting them), just having a building collapse seems like one of the most inefficient methods possible.

Wouldn't a raging fire on every floor, left unchecked for several days do a better job? Because, after a collapse, you have to guarantee that everything you wished destroyed, would not still be there to be found.

WTC 7 as a "planned" demo just fails the logic test, for those and other reasons....not to mention the facts dispute the "demolition theory" as well.



True. Computer backup does exist. Remember, however, that the SEC is a federal organization and we all know what they say about government work...It takes too much work to scan files and save them. Especially with as many cases they had on their plate. 3-4,000. Decent argument though.

I don't think I'd trust destroying material to a fire that I'd have to depend on lasting for days. Just think about the potentiality of firefighters going in and snuffing out the fire. No. I'd trust an entire building collapse. It seems a reach that entire files with all their papers would remain intact.

The point of this....
Isn't it worth a shot to have an independent investigative team in on this? Redo it by a different set of people other than the first team who did it twice?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You are trying to compare my washers to floors in the WTC. I am making no such comparison. The washers are MASS that must be supported. The floors were not the only MASS in the WTC. You pancake people pretend the core wasn't there and don't explain how it got collapsed.

psik


I dont forget it. No one does. The core remained standing for about 15 seconds after the floors and exterior collapsed. The core collapsed due to damage and it wasnt suppose to be a freestanding structure. Your model has the washers with supports underneath the floors, which allow to slow down the collapse. The WTC had no such structure to arrest the floors.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join