It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Why don't the conspiracy theorists have their OWN investigation?

page: 8
14
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

The difference would be I did not drag the issue along. There is a huge difference IMO. And it just goes to show the personalities of those posting IMO.

BTW, I didn't state that Bazant said it anyway. I said "they" meaning the author of the paper.

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:04 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:35 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:32 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 08:08 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:34 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 09:41 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by hooper

Really?

So there is no such thing as L(oad) R(esistance) F(actor) D(esign)?

Try looking up LRFD and then tell me I don't know what I talk about.

The published load combination equations are:

LRFD

1.4(D + F)
1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + ((0.5 or 1.0)*L or 0.8W)
1.2D + 1.6W + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D + 1.0E + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + 0.2S
0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H
0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H
When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to equations (2), (4), and (6), effectively resulting in three new equations which are listed here:

2ice. 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.2Di + 0.5S
4ice. 1.2D + (0.5 or 1.0)*L + Di + Wi + 0.5S
6ice. 0.9D + Di + Wi + 1.6H

* Note that the load factor for L in equations (3), (4), and (5) is permitted to equal 0.5 for occupancies in which the unit live load is less than or equal to 100 psf, except for garages or areas occupied as places of public assembly.

If you want to say that the load calculations were used for ASD then I can show that the loads are even then factored at times:

ASD

D + F
D + H + F + L + T
D + H + F + (Lr or S or R)
D + H + F + 0.75(L + T) + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
D + H + F + (W or 0.7E)
D + H + F + 0.75(W or 0.7E) + 0.75L + 0.75(Lr or S or R)
0.6D + W + H
0.6D + 0.7E + H
For the purposes of this text, we will identify the equations and their permutations by the labels defined as defined in Table 2.1.

When atmospheric ice is included, ASCE 7-05 requires modifications to equations (2), (3), and (7), effectively resulting in three new equations which are listed here:

2ice. D + H + F + L + T + 0.7Di
3ice. D + H + F + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + S
6ice. 0.6D + 0.7Di + 0.7Wi + H

www.bgstructuralengineering.com...

But, I don't really expect you to actually read my link and learn something when all you want to do is troll.

edit on 18-10-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM

Yeah, look at two of those words, design and resistance. Let me put this as simply as possible, a person is designing a floor system so naturally they ask the customer or end user what they are going to put on the floor. Then the designer considers all the other loads on the floor from stuff like wall finishes, ceiling systems, mechanical systems, plumbing, etc, adds it all together and comes up with an average weight per square foot. Say, 45 lbs. The designer then goes about design a floor system that can hold the 45psf plus a safety factor of anywhere between 100% and 300%. This of course, excepts any special considerations such as a real heavy piece of special equipment or special structure.

All that being said, you still have no clue what to do with any information anyway, so its a moot point. Now please continue trying to tell everyone why you can't do an analysis because you don't have enough information.

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by hooper

Yeah, look at two of those words, design and resistance.

Look at the other word....factor.....meaning safety factor.

Which is incorporated.

At any rate. There are many steel members that will satisfy a given load requirement. Depending on what FOS they used, we could be way off if we had to reverse engineer the structural members.

And also, why do I need to trust what NIST has published when they themselves could have reversed engineered the members to coincide with their own theory? Without a peer review, one would never know. They have, after all, performed some suspicious behaviour in the past IMO.

It would be like me telling you my sh*t doesn't stink but never letting you near me before, during or after the act until I have flushed it away to see for yourself.
edit on 18-10-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM

## Listen up

Discuss the subject, not each other. If you continue to resort to childish bickering, name calling and silliness more direct action will be taken.

First and only warning.

YOU are responsible for your posts. ANY insult, whatsoever will result in the entire post being removed.

A different opinion to yours is not trolling. ATS is a discussion and debate forum. People come here to discuss and debate the information posted. If you wish to just be patted on the back for your thoughts, feel free to start a blog of your own and post them there.
edit on 18/10/11 by neformore because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 02:11 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 02:45 AM

There has been lots of investigations. There also have been several individuals who did their own investigations and came up with lots of evidence on 9/11, and whom were taking the government and others to court but for some reason it seems all of these individuals seem to commit suicide just before the court date .

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:26 PM

5 will get you 10 that Dave will say that what we have here, is just another one of those damn fool co-incidences. But, I don't think they can kill enough people to keep this covered-up much longer. The 'bloom is off the rose'.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles

There has been lots of investigations. There also have been several individuals who did their own investigations and came up with lots of evidence on 9/11, and whom were taking the government and others to court but for some reason it seems all of these individuals seem to commit suicide just before the court date .

This isn't even remotely true. The two instances I'm aware of where "there was enough evidence to bring to court" were April Gallop (who insisted that no plane hit the Pentagon) and Dr. Judy Wood (who insisted the towers were destroyed by energy weapons from outer space). In both cases, they didn't offer even a microbe of tangible evidence to back any of their claims; they essentially attempted to do the same thing in court as the conspiracy theorists are doing here on ATS- make accusations of impropriety and insinuations of coverups within secret plots within conspiracies, and then demand the accused to prove the accusations and insinuations are wrong. Problem is, the real world works completely different from conspiracy world in that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused, and both cases were laughed out of court. You may agree or disagree with the judges' decisions to laugh them out of court, but it isn't for debate these court cases aren't even close to being a true investigation.

FYI April Gallop and Judy Wood are both very much alive, so this "they committed suicide" bit is entirely a make believe figment of your own paranoia.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by dillweed

5 will get you 10 that Dave will say that what we have here, is just another one of those damn fool co-incidences. But, I don't think they can kill enough people to keep this covered-up much longer. The 'bloom is off the rose'.

No, actually what we have here is such a blind zealotry to push out your conspiracy paranoia to the point where you simply will not think for yourself. Dr. Woods is adamantly against these "controlled demolitions" and "no planes" stories floating around, so she is by no means your ally. Why you are supporting her campaign is beyond me, as her lawsuit was specifically to prove your claims were bunk.

...or do you agree with her supposed investigation and now concede there weren't any controlled demolitons and that planes really did hit the towers and the Pentagon?
edit on 24-10-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dillweed

5 will get you 10 that Dave will say that what we have here, is just another one of those damn fool co-incidences. But, I don't think they can kill enough people to keep this covered-up much longer. The 'bloom is off the rose'.

No, actually what we have here is such a blind zealotry to push out your conspiracy paranoia to the point where you simply will not think for yourself. Dr. Woods is adamantly against these "controlled demolitions" and "no planes" stories floating around, so she is by no means your ally. Why you are supporting her campaign is beyond me, as her lawsuit was specifically to prove your claims were bunk.

...or do you agree with her supposed investigation and now concede there weren't any controlled demolitons and that planes really did hit the towers and the Pentagon?
edit on 24-10-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)
Dave, it's obvious that your contract causes you to be paid on volume, and not content, because I swear I read that twice and I still don't know what the hell you're talking about. I thought that in order for you to be taken seriously, you had to make some sense.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by dillweed
Dave, it's obvious that your contract causes you to be paid on volume, and not content, because I swear I read that twice and I still don't know what the hell you're talking about. I thought that in order for you to be taken seriously, you had to make some sense.

Do I really need to explain your own conspiracies to you? I mean, really?

A) Lostmymarbles claimed there already were investigations by individuals who took the government to court. One of the is Dr. Judy Wood, who sued NIST on the grounds they were covering up the WTC towers being destroyed by energy weapons from outer space.

B) YOU come along and say (and I quote) "5 will get you 10 that Dave will say that what we have here, is just another one of those damn fool co-incidences. But, I don't think they can kill enough people to keep this covered-up much longer. The 'bloom is off the rose'. "

C) I'm pointing out that the people you're defending think you're an idiot. Dr. Wood is on record as saying the "controlled demolitions" and "no planes" claims are rubbish, which YOU have been insisting are true all along. It's the entire reason why Wood split away from AE911TRUTH. You're so wrapped up in your conspiracy stories that you didn't even know that.

E) not to mention, what does this rant of yours even have anything to do with why the conspiracy theorists don't have their own investigations? That is the subject of the OP, after all.

This is my last post to you. You really have no credibility and I will waste no more of my time on you. Grow up, dude.

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:31 PM

Okay not all but a lot. Better?

Here are a few examples.

www.rense.com...

www.brasschecktv.com... 1-eye-witness-commits-suicide.html

and the list can go on and on and on...

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles

Okay not all but a lot. Better?

Here are a few examples.

I am really tired of the truthers milking the death of Barry Jennings for their cute little paranoia games. The only reason this is "mysterious" is that his family wants to keep it a private matter and they don't want you people nosing around in their sensitive issues. The guy was approaching his 60's, he was obese, he had bad knees and couldn't get around, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were health issues even before 9/11. If the family doesn't want to share the circumstances of his passing with you conspiracy people, that's just too bad for you because you have no right to demand any such thing from his family. If the family wanted to tell you truthers, they would tell you. The family NOT wanting to tell you says to me right there they' don't want to have anything to do with you truthers.

This whole "mysterious death" thing is nothing but an internet rumor invented by that douchebag Dylan Avery. The family essentially told him to go [censored] himself when he tried to find out details of his passing (they knew full well who Avery was from all the videos he made of Jennings) so Avery hired a detective to find out. Once the detective found out what Avery's true purpose was he came back and essentially told Avery to go [censored] himself too. Now Avery is gloating how he "hired a detective but the detective mysteriously withdrew from the case", and he's painting it out to be some sinister thing along with a massive coverup in Jennings' family, all to sell t-shirts on that damned fool conspiracy web site of his. Go look it up on his web site if you don't believe me.

You'll need to excuse me for being curt as I'm not venting on you. Dylan Avery is one of the most self serving disgusting worms there is in the 9/11 apple barrel. You yourself are simply one of Avery's victims, and besides, as I pointed out, the truthers already have enough information (blueprints, chemical composition of the explosives, etc) to begin their own real investigation. Why is Avery wasting everyone's time inventing paranoia over why Jennings died?
edit on 25-10-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

top topics

14