Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 92

Thread: WTC 7 - University of Alaska Fairbanks report.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    9th June 2005 - 13:22
    Bike
    Sold
    Location
    Oblivion
    Posts
    2,945

    Interesting comparison - for those that may (or not) be interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    You didn't really think that comment through, did you?
    18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke?

    husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDD...ature=youtu.be -


  2. #17
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    11,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire View Post
    That's impressive recall from the 3 lines I read.

    While it's easy and quick to ask four questions.
    Yet it takes much more space and time to answer them. Years ago I used to test concrete for a living. So i know a little bit about concrete.
    So if you want to be sarcastic about the length of responses Why raise multiple questions, that you could easily answer if you actually looked up the subject mater.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    I reminder distinctly .




    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  3. #18
    Join Date
    20th January 2010 - 14:41
    Bike
    husaberg
    Location
    The Wild Wild West
    Posts
    11,823
    Quote Originally Posted by oldrider View Post
    18 years later - who ya gonna call? - husaberg or David Icke?

    husaberg (KB's know it all bullshit artist) versus David Icke's latest book "Trigger":- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrDD...ature=youtu.be -
    Lets see John
    Post the bullshit i have made up and posted on KB.
    I am happy to list the BS you have posted on KB. but it would run for more than two pages.
    Funny You post David Ike the guy that believes the world is run by shapeshifting aliens. Nice one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    I reminder distinctly .




    Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken

  4. #19
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,460
    Although I've already done so in the other 9/11 thread - I feel it bears repeating:

    Certainly the Study is Transparent, but when you read the Methodology, you find that they deliberately cut corners to 'save time and computational resources', as such - it's validity should be treated as suspect.

    Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  5. #20
    Join Date
    15th February 2005 - 15:34
    Bike
    Katanasaurus Rex
    Location
    The Gates of Delirium
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.
    Bear in mind also, that NIST's computer generated graphic simulation of the collapse looked nothing like the collapse that was seen on 9/11.

    That might indicate that it wasn't done on a very good supercomputer.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    20th January 2008 - 17:29
    Bike
    1972 Norton Commando
    Location
    Auckland NZ's Epicentre
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by husaberg View Post
    While it's easy and quick to ask four questions.
    Yet it takes much more space and time to answer them. Years ago I used to test concrete for a living. So i know a little bit about concrete.
    So if you want to be sarcastic about the length of responses Why raise multiple questions, that you could easily answer if you actually looked up the subject mater.
    I didn't ask any questions.
    Traditionally they have ? at the end of a sentence.

    If I wanted to know more about it surely I'd not be asking here.
    I'll just go with a load of Saudis precision crashed two planes into the twin towers which then collapsed in a non controlled way and another relatively undamaged building also collapsed. As you were.
    DeMyer's Laws - an argument that consists primarily of rambling quotes isn't worth bothering with.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    4th December 2009 - 19:45
    Bike
    I Ride No More
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Although I've already done so in the other 9/11 thread - I feel it bears repeating:

    Certainly the Study is Transparent, but when you read the Methodology, you find that they deliberately cut corners to 'save time and computational resources', as such - it's validity should be treated as suspect.

    Katman's point in the other thread that there was no such transparency with the NIST report is somewhat fair, but then if the above statement about computational resources is to be believed, it's a reasonable conjecture that the NIST model may have been done on a supercomputer and as such certain transparency wouldn't be applicable (since revealing the methodology would allow one to reverse-engineer the computational power and from there work-out what cypher-breaking capabilities the US has.
    If you're going to comment on the NIST report, then it is
    worth actually reading the final NIST report:

    https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Le...AR/ncstar1.pdf

    [Yes, I have a copy. Yes, I read it once it was published]

    If you want interpretation of the NIST report, then go to the
    AE911 Truth website, and watch their critique of the report:

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/...sive-collapse-

    theory

    The video clip is 79 minutes long, but you can go directly
    to the 72 minute mark to hear their summary of why the
    NIST report is such a poor document.

    Specifically point 4. Why ?

    Because (irrespective of computational power that NIST
    may have had available), their supposed analysis of the
    collapse scenario stopped exactly at the point of the
    initiation of "building collapse" - and never proceeded
    beyond that point
    (to model the actual building collapse
    process itself).

    The old IT flowchart equivalent of "... and then a miracle
    happens".

    Had they done so, the consequence of such action would
    have been to invalidate their own findings, and to make a
    nonsense of their own report. [And raise uncomfortable
    questions]

    How so ?

    Because to model the collapse process itself (faithfully)
    would have demonstrated two things:

    1. A building whose floors structural supports are supposedly
    failing progressively (and its floors "pancaking") does not
    collapse "in free fall".

    Its collapse would be impeded, and the rate of acceleration
    experienced during collapse would not be anywhere close to
    that of gravity alone (9.82 m/sec sq).

    Which was observed and measured. As per the video clips in
    post #4 earlier.

    2. NIST would have had to model one or more scenarios which
    demonstrated that for "free fall" to occur, the effect of vertical
    structural supports between floors within the buildings would
    have had to be "completely removed".

    And that this effect would have had to occur immediately prior
    to and/or during the time of the building collapse itself
    .

    How do you suddenly just "magic away" structural supports
    between floors ? [ to be consistent with "free fall" ]

    That's right. You don't.

    I'm only aware of one process that could have accomplished
    this outcome. A "controlled demolition".

    The same conclusion that many members of AE911 Truth (i.e.
    engineers, physicists, demolition experts) quickly came to.

    Which of course leads on to the point about the reduced amount
    of structural steel and concrete observed in the rubble piles -
    and the vast clouds of pulverised concrete observed during WTC
    building collapse.

    And I don't even have to be a "conspiracy theorist".

  8. #23
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    If you're going to comment on the NIST report, then it is
    worth actually reading the final NIST report:

    https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Le...AR/ncstar1.pdf

    [Yes, I have a copy. Yes, I read it once it was published]

    If you want interpretation of the NIST report, then go to the
    AE911 Truth website, and watch their critique of the report:

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/...sive-collapse-

    theory

    The video clip is 79 minutes long, but you can go directly
    to the 72 minute mark to hear their summary of why the
    NIST report is such a poor document.

    Specifically point 4. Why ?

    Because (irrespective of computational power that NIST
    may have had available), their supposed analysis of the
    collapse scenario stopped exactly at the point of the
    initiation of "building collapse" - and never proceeded
    beyond that point
    (to model the actual building collapse
    process itself).

    The old IT flowchart equivalent of "... and then a miracle
    happens".

    Had they done so, the consequence of such action would
    have been to invalidate their own findings, and to make a
    nonsense of their own report. [And raise uncomfortable
    questions]

    How so ?

    Because to model the collapse process itself (faithfully)
    would have demonstrated two things:

    1. A building whose floors structural supports are supposedly
    failing progressively (and its floors "pancaking") does not
    collapse "in free fall".

    Its collapse would be impeded, and the rate of acceleration
    experienced during collapse would not be anywhere close to
    that of gravity alone (9.82 m/sec sq).

    Which was observed and measured. As per the video clips in
    post #4 earlier.

    2. NIST would have had to model one or more scenarios which
    demonstrated that for "free fall" to occur, the effect of vertical
    structural supports between floors within the buildings would
    have had to be "completely removed".

    And that this effect would have had to occur immediately prior
    to and/or during the time of the building collapse itself
    .

    How do you suddenly just "magic away" structural supports
    between floors ? [ to be consistent with "free fall" ]

    That's right. You don't.

    I'm only aware of one process that could have accomplished
    this outcome. A "controlled demolition".

    The same conclusion that many members of AE911 Truth (i.e.
    engineers, physicists, demolition experts) quickly came to.

    Which of course leads on to the point about the reduced amount
    of structural steel and concrete observed in the rubble piles -
    and the vast clouds of pulverised concrete observed during WTC
    building collapse.

    And I don't even have to be a "conspiracy theorist".
    There's a 531 page thread in Pointless Drivel covering off all of the above things you listed. With many-a-commentary on both the NIST report and the critique of it. I could re-hash the problems with a controlled Demolition claim - which include:

    1: Triggering
    2: Integrity of Explosives subjected to heat for extended periods of time
    3: Lack of Explosions preceding the collapse (the 'jets of air' frequently cited occur DURING the collaps)
    4: Lack of Explosions in general (when we compare similar controlled demolitions, even those in urban areas, the main blasting charges are still very much visible)
    5: Once sufficient inertia has been gained, the deceleration experienced by the hitting the next structural support would be negligible - the same deceleration (for example) that your Motorcycle experiences when hitting a Fly.
    6: Linking back to the above - there's a video on Youtube (that may or may not still exist) where someone did a backyard experiment to 'prove' the controlled demolition claim, which hilariously included a section whereby multiple sections of his model tower pancake collapsed, without one of his firecrackers going off, and all instantaneously

    I could go on.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  9. #24
    Join Date
    4th December 2009 - 19:45
    Bike
    I Ride No More
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    There's a 531 page thread in Pointless Drivel covering off all of the above things you listed. With many-a-commentary on both the NIST report and the critique of it. I could re-hash the problems with a controlled Demolition claim - which include:

    1: Triggering
    2: Integrity of Explosives subjected to heat for extended periods of time
    3: Lack of Explosions preceding the collapse (the 'jets of air' frequently cited occur DURING the collaps)
    4: Lack of Explosions in general (when we compare similar controlled demolitions, even those in urban areas, the main blasting charges are still very much visible)
    5: Once sufficient inertia has been gained, the deceleration experienced by the hitting the next structural support would be negligible - the same deceleration (for example) that your Motorcycle experiences when hitting a Fly.
    6: Linking back to the above - there's a video on Youtube (that may or may not still exist) where someone did a backyard experiment to 'prove' the controlled demolition claim, which hilariously included a section whereby multiple sections of his model tower pancake collapsed, without one of his firecrackers going off, and all instantaneously

    I could go on.

    Yes, you could. But there's no need.

    You don't need to explain HOW a controlled demolition might have been accomplished.

    You just need to realise that only under the circumstances of a controlled demolition
    could the building collapses have occurred in the manner observed.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    3rd October 2006 - 21:21
    Bike
    Breaking rocks
    Location
    in the hot sun
    Posts
    4,213
    Blog Entries
    1
    So, to sum up.
    1,thousands of people died in 911, incl people on the plane. Fact.
    2, prob thousands of people were involved in coregraphing the explosions that brought down three buildings, none of whom have come forward to fess up. Opinion.
    3, this was all done primarily to claim insurance on the buildings? Opinion.

    My question is this, why didn't these incredibly clever people alleged to have orchestrated this alleged destruction, detonate their explosives to make it look like a plane flying into the building caused all this destruction?
    Surely they could have just charterd a plane and filled it with explosives as well, would have been easier to cover up?
    Only a Rat can win a Rat Race!

  11. #26
    Join Date
    15th February 2005 - 15:34
    Bike
    Katanasaurus Rex
    Location
    The Gates of Delirium
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Laava View Post
    3, this was all done primarily to claim insurance on the buildings? Opinion.
    I would suggest that the insurance claim on the buildings was simply an added bonus.

    The never-ending 'War on Terror' was the real objective.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Viking01 View Post
    Yes, you could. But there's no need.

    You don't need to explain HOW a controlled demolition might have been accomplished.

    You just need to realise that only under the circumstances of a controlled demolition
    could the building collapses have occurred in the manner observed.
    It was magic Sky Pixies.

    You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



    Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  13. #28
    Join Date
    15th February 2005 - 15:34
    Bike
    Katanasaurus Rex
    Location
    The Gates of Delirium
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    It was magic Sky Pixies.

    You don't need to explain HOW it could by Magic Sky Pixies, you just need to realise that only Magic Sky Pixies could have done it in the manner observed.



    Come on, I know you to be better than that. If you can't explain the How - when you eliminate the impossible etc.
    So if the choice came down to controlled demolition or 'Magic Sky Pixies', which would you think was more likely?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    7th January 2014 - 14:45
    Bike
    Not a Hayabusa anymore
    Location
    Not Gulf Harbour Either
    Posts
    1,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Katman View Post
    So if the choice came down to controlled demolition or 'Magic Sky Pixies', which would you think was more likely?
    Both are equal works of fiction requiring things that at the time (or now) are not known to exist.
    Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress

  15. #30
    Join Date
    15th February 2005 - 15:34
    Bike
    Katanasaurus Rex
    Location
    The Gates of Delirium
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemonLord View Post
    Both are equal works of fiction requiring things that at the time (or now) are not known to exist.
    And like I've said many times before - just because you don't know about something, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •