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.

 

This is how normal people discuss 9/11

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 





Is it considered an official governmental report?


well yes NIST and FEMA are generally considered as "official government reports" and the American Society of Civil Engineers assisted with the development of these reports.




why isn't it common knowledge and in all the newspapers informing the American public that 911was done by the US government


9/11 truth probably gets more press coverage than any other conspiracy.




I don't read reports,


then how do you know they are wrong?

and that is a very serious question that i would really appreciate it if you could answer for me.

if you have not read the official reports then how can you know they are wrong?I was actually there....



I was actually there....


Then i am sure you have some very harrowing tales of what happened that day.

but it does not qualify you in anyway to say with any degree of accuracy that this was some kind of false flag event.
edit on 19-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





NIST does expain their methods. Of all scientific papers I have read


Did you only read the first two paragraphs? Just wondering...



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PtolemyII
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


I was there too, and not once did a hear anyone say yee haw taliban anything.


CNN on 9/11/01 talks about Osama and Afghanastan harboring terrorists. Almost like they had already known





posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   


CNN on 9/11/01 talks about Osama and Afghanistan harboring terrorists. Almost like they had already known


The counter terrorism center in Langley, Virginia set up the 'Bin Laden unit' in 1995. The FBI equivalent was set up in 1997 was known as 'Alex Station'.

He was indited by the US Justice Department in 1998 for terrorism and murder charges.

By 9:30 am on September 11th 2001 I knew it was Bin Laden because I had followed the USS Cole investigation.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spooky24



CNN on 9/11/01 talks about Osama and Afghanistan harboring terrorists. Almost like they had already known


The counter terrorism center in Langley, Virginia set up the 'Bin Laden unit' in 1995. The FBI equivalent was set up in 1997 was known as 'Alex Station'.

He was indited by the US Justice Department in 1998 for terrorism and murder charges.

By 9:30 am on September 11th 2001 I knew it was Bin Laden because I had followed the USS Cole investigation.


Have you heard Michael Scheuer tell his opinion about bin laden?

And why the US justice Department never officially charge him for 9/11?
edit on 19-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I haven't read the complete report, but did read or skimmed several chapters. Relevant for the claim that they didn't share several of the critical methods to reproduce the results are chapters like

"E.2 APPROACH"

"E.2 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS RESULT"

which explain what methodology and simulations software was used. You can also find floor plans and lots of information on all the sub assemblies in the WTC tower, including the dimensions and materials. Not sure if it is in the NIST report, but the exact type of columns used is also available in the public domain.

But you already knew this as I suppose you read more than the first two paragraphs. So if you can point out which part of their used method is not explained well enough then maybe there is something left to discuss.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





I haven't read the complete report, but did read or skimmed several chapters. Relevant for the claim that they didn't share several of the critical methods to reproduce the results are chapters like


I'm concerned about stage 2 of the collapse. Tell me how did NIST learn what caused it? Thanks!



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Complete nonsense. NIST does expain their methods. Of all scientific papers I have read (quite a lot during my study) only a few mention the used simulation software and none realeased their model. That in no way means its not reproducable. A capable group of experts can easily reproduce NIST work, to verify their conclusions. The reason its not going to happen is because all capable experts already support the conclusions.


Without a doubt, the most ignorant defense ever uttered in the annals of ATS, a site whose motto is to "Deny Ignorance."

In such a dynamic world described in the quoted post, a university student would be allowed to submit any thesis, devoid of outside supporting documentation and analysis, and be instantly awarded the sought-after degree.

NIST clearly does not explain all their methods, period. End of story. If they did, then there would be no further debate.

As far as the adjective, "capable," this is purely subjective.

An appeal to numbers works when one side LITERALLY POSSESSES more guns and ammunition on its side than the other.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


You obviously are pretty clueless about how universities work. A student that works on his thesis works for a professor, whom of course knows all the ins and outs of the works of the student. The professor is the one that eventually grades the student.

Papers that are published, either by the student or the professor, usually contain just enough information to communicate the innovation. I have never seen any publication that came with models. This is both because experts in the same field know how to model it, and it is a method to protect intellectual property.

Your whole "NIST clearly does not explain all their methods, period. End of story" is totally meaningless when you can not put your finger on the essential method they did no explain. End of story.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 



It was structural failure that initiated it, and gravity that caused it.

Maybe you should be a more specific on what methodology they are not clear on. I can cite of course that they developed a model in LS-DYNA, I could of course post information about the structural members they modeled, but you already know all of that, so what methodology are they not clear about?



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret
 



It was structural failure that initiated it, and gravity that caused it.

Maybe you should be a more specific on what methodology they are not clear on. I can cite of course that they developed a model in LS-DYNA, I could of course post information about the structural members they modeled, but you already know all of that, so what methodology are they not clear about?


Now why would I be asking you if I knew it? That makes no sense. Lets say I want to buy the LS-DYNA software, where can I get the information needed to reproduce the same model that NIST did?



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The only thing I am going to state in regard to your follow up response concerning the university metaphor is you are patently wrong.



Your whole "NIST clearly does not explain all their methods, period. End of story" is totally meaningless when you can not put your finger on the essential method they did no explain. End of story.


The issue is not whether I can put my finger on any essential method NIST used. The methods are clear. A follow up analysis is impossible, because they refuse to release:


1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
.

Their excuse is "public safety."



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


I'm kinda hoping that he knows where we can get this information. He sure sounds like he does, doesn't he?



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Try Richard Gage.
He's been saying he has all the information for years.

He should be able to tell us where charges must be placed to produce the results seen.
He should be able to tell us how big the charges must be.
He should be able to tell us how to fire/crash proof the charges.

But then he doesn't. I wonder why?

He's put out a whole series of DVD's
He's put out a whole bunch of news letters.
He goes on his buddy's radio talk show.

But he never utters one word about the specifics of how it was done.

The world awaits your papers Mr. Gage!

chirp chirp chirp
The crickets are deafening.



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


To you and whatsecret:

If you agree their methods are clear then why are you arguing they are not? We know their methodology, we know what to model. An expert will know how to reproduce it. Your critique that their methods are unknown turns out to be completely unfounded. The only argument you have is that they didn't release the models. Make you own, and if you can't, ask, no, demand it from your so called experts.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


No such luck on anyone's part. The modeling program is presented. The data inputs and results, along with the files, are locked up.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 




Try Richard Gage. He's been saying he has all the information for years.


Tell me where he said that he know how NIST created their model... Please?



He should be able to tell us where charges must be placed to produce the results seen. He should be able to tell us how big the charges must be. He should be able to tell us how to fire/crash proof the charges.


This is not what I'm concerned about. Please pay attention to what I'm talking about.



But then he doesn't. I wonder why?


I still don't understand why you care so much about this guy.



He's put out a whole series of DVD's He's put out a whole bunch of news letters. He goes on his buddy's radio talk show.


None of that has anything to do with NIST. Do you think NIST gave him the information but he is not releasing it to us?



But he never utters one word about the specifics of how it was done.


Why do you think he should know specifics of how it was done? Was he part of the taxpayer funded investigation?



The world awaits your papers Mr. Gage!


I find that very strange... Why would the world await anything from him?



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by totallackey
 


To you and whatsecret:

If you agree their methods are clear then why are you arguing they are not? We know their methodology, we know what to model. An expert will know how to reproduce it. Your critique that their methods are unknown turns out to be completely unfounded. The only argument you have is that they didn't release the models. Make you own, and if you can't, ask, no, demand it from your so called experts.



Can you help me out? I want to buy the LS-DYNA software, where can I get the information needed to reproduce the same model that NIST did?

I have no idea who to ask. You seem to trust certain experts, did they reproduce the model? Can you tell me where I can find their work?



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


You can start with all the information in the NIST report. Once you get stuck tell me what information you need. I don't know of anyone who tried to reproduce the model. It should have been the first thing Gage should have done though.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Once you get stuck tell me what information you need.


Luckily for me the area I am stuck on is addressed in NIST FAQs. It's question # 11.


In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?


They say that during Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. I don't understand what happened to the structure below. NIST said that the exterior columns buckled and lost their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. But in all the videos I can find I cannot see this happening. So NIST said that they couldn't see that in any of the videos too, so they created a structural analysis model with a computer software and that's how they figured out what exactly happened to the structure below.

Being curious by nature and believing in the credibility gap, I thought that I would be able to find someone else that reproduced this thing. But I'm unable to find anyone. So since I'm very interested in this subject I started looking if I can get the same software and just do it myself. I found the software here, but it's pretty complicated so I started looking for any instruction for reproducing the result NIST came up with. And I found that I am not alone, others are also looking for this information and put in a FOIA request for it. NIST replied with this:

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the
disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the
collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September
11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following
information:
1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,
break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop
floor connection failure modes and capacities.
2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher
Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009


So as you can see I am pretty stuck here. What should I do next?


It should have been the first thing Gage should have done though.


Do you think Gage has power to make NIST release this information? If he does but is refusing to use it on purpose, then he's a real as$hole.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join