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.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 27
74
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

well done, you read one paragraph, now go back and read the whole thing. You appear to be completely ignorant of real world engineering. No new physics was invented or invoked. If that phrase was used, it was badly worded and probably meant the following

"Some physics we had not considered in our original model was used and it showed how the building collapsed."

Its like in Nuclear Astrophysics when supernova models just wouldn't work, put in all the parameters and physics you understand and you cannot predict any star should explode. Hmmmm what to do? Then a particle physicist comes along and says "Hey, does your model include neutrinos? You know, looking at your model, the energy release in neutrinos is enormous" They add it to the model, and boom, the model does predict exploding stars.

If they came out and said "We used some new physics for our model" it would be correct, but no NEW UNKNOWN BEFORE physics was invoked.


Now, we have given answers to the questions, if you are too ignorant to actually see them as answers, then well, guess we are all wasting breath/our fingers aren't we.




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
I see my question went down few pages ago... I just ask again

Please explain the attraction/repulsion force in this video
(starting at 2:20 till 25:15)

Tesla coil powered light bolt repels human hand and attracts a piece of copper


It doesnt repel the human hand thats called acting from the set up looks like they created a resonant coil basically same thing Tesla did. We call this resonant inductive coupling in most electrical systems we want to remove the ringing which is an oscillation of the signal or in this case the current. This oscillation can be transferred by a near field wave if you place a mike to close to a speaker thats the whine or screech you here. But for this we can use this oscillating signal to move electrons in our other coil basically looking like we transferred current through the air TADA magic.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Again if your going to discuss 9/11 please take it into that forum. Discussing the NIST report isnt discussing a question on physics your looking for a forum to discuss 9/11. I personally dont care about the NIST report any government group will make a mistake its the government. If there is a specific question you have about physics great if its well the report says this how is that possible not physics. Because my argument is simple never read the report nor will I you hit a plane into a building its going to cause failures to be honest the fact it didnt fall immediately in itself shows the engineers did a pretty good job. The kinetic energy that building had to withstand not counting the fire was an amazing feat of engineering. The fact it collapsed after further damage by fire on a weakened structural support in no way is shocking or surprising. And just the fact that people think demolitions were involved show how little they understand of the work involved to take down a building takes months of preparation and alot of people.

I



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What are you afraid of?
Mary 9/11 or NIST report ought not to be discussed scientifically imo.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: wmd_2008

Kinda odd how after hfgbob was banned, soundstyle signs up shortly afterwards and posts in this thread supporting him and continuing his line of questioning/spamming and in a thread in the 9/11 conspiracy forum, again, supporting him and continuing his line of questioning/spamming.

I smell a sock puppet account!


Yes also quoting the EXACT same figures and info re the NIST report etc.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: soundstyle

So, the elephant in the room is that NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which could not be more mainstream, is corrupt.


I don't know about the entirety of NIST, but I do know that claim is bogus.

They are on their own video at their own webcast tech briefing putting fourth this new phenomenon they claim fell WTC7.

direct links were given to the WTC7 NIST report showing this interval of global unified acceleration equal to g. occurred for 105 vertical feet.

there are direct links to the 2008 NIST crew claiming this new phenomenon.

along with a brief synopsis of taught science all agree upon must occur......except on 9-11.

I just want answers to this and I don't care whom I have to piss off to get it.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




Ever play Jenga?


ever build a steel framed building????

tell ya what, next time you play Jenga, superglue all the pieces together as your assembling for play!

then try and disassemble it.




And I think in WTC 7 there was a large diesel fuel tank which caught on fire and so there was a huge fire in the building in many places.


well you think wrong....2005 NIST reported ALL fuel in the tanks were recovered....fire were caused by regular office products.


[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"


if you would like to discuss the events of 9-11, go to the 9-11 forum...I am asking a physics question as to HOW this new phenomenon of "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" completely removes structural mass to allow the found global unified acceleration to occur for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433




You appear to be completely ignorant of real world engineering.


yet I am the one supplying all the facts needed.....you are just sitting there contradicting them without providing an alternative or correction.......hows that working out for ya?






No new physics was invented or invoked. If that phrase was used, it was badly worded and probably meant the following

"Some physics we had not considered in our original model was used and it showed how the building collapsed."


then YOU go and watch the WTC7 NIST 2008 tech briefing...


Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

there is a PDF transcript below the video so you can read along.

turn to page 34 of that transcript.....and fast-forward the video if ya want, Shyam Sunder states.....


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


and another thing....you put quote marks around this....

"Some physics we had not considered in our original model was used and it showed how the building collapsed."

those are your words, not theirs yet you apply it as a quote in an attempt to confuse......


you entire post is void of any explanation....lmao...you are ranting, flailing, and attempting to shoot the messenger instead of the addressing message.






If they came out and said "We used some new physics for our model" it would be correct, but no NEW UNKNOWN BEFORE physics was invoked.



then tell me how this new phenomenon of physics where thermal expansion occurs at LOW TEMPS to COMPLETELY remove structural resistance.....as they are officially claiming occurs.

any examples of acceleration equal to g.occurring in a steel framed building being caused by an isolated office fire before or after 9-11????
or any reason known to man for that matter, completely removing resistance BEFORE the collapse can be seen...as must occur to allow global unified FFA.

I am asking a science/physics question.....how bout putting the white jacket on and answer with science/physics?!?!?!?!?!?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




Yes also quoting the EXACT same figures and info re the NIST report etc.


uhm.....well, facts from a scientific investigation and taught agreed upon science does NOT change from post to post......it stays the same.

a concept of understanding that is completely void here it seems.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Again if your going to discuss 9/11 please take it into that forum.


I am asking a 'physics' question about a physics phenomenon that is claimed to occur.

I show the statement from the authors w/links.
I post the technical information from the authors w/links.
I give a brief synopsis of what agreed upon taught science says.....

and none of your peoples replied even address this.....they distract form it......now, WHY is that????


......seems YOU people are acting like it's the 9-11 forum......how bout we FOCUS boys!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei




Mary 9/11 or NIST report ought not to be discussed scientifically imo.


have to ask....WHY?
do you or anyone else here have a vested interest in keeping facts hidden?

...or do ya think it will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I would like an answer to this phenomenon of science that only occurred on 9-11....and why the fact there is absolutely NO concern by the ones putting fourth the claims it will never occur again from an isolated office fire at one end of the building....

If I was still building, I would be greatly concerned it this can occur again i one of my buildings.

...yet the authors would rather this disappear.

...as you all seem to want too!



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
I don't know about the entirety of NIST, but I do know that claim is bogus.

Yes, I agree, it would not be the entirety of NIST; I think that's true of all corruption. But this is a major discrepancy.


originally posted by: soundstyle
. . . along with a brief synopsis of taught science all agree upon must occur......except on 9-11.

So, in essence, it appears they were hoping people wouldn't put two and two together to conclude that they were blowing smoke right there for all the world to see?

Is that a fair statement?

This is the National Institute of Standards and Technology we're talking about here.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

If we can't discuss major events scientifically in order to grasp the truth, then God help us.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
...I am asking a physics question as to HOW this new phenomenon of "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" completely removes structural mass to allow the found global unified acceleration to occur for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.

Okay I'm trying to understand exactly what you're saying.

In 2005 the new phenomenon low temp thermal expansion was not known by NIST, or for whatever reason it was not reported.

But in 2008 it was.

What is "found global unified acceleration"?

Is that a common, accepted term in physics?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

There is a whole forum on just 9/11 on which these points have been discussed many many times so rather than turn this excellent thread into another 9/11 thread post your question on the 9/11 forum.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Don't instruct me as to where I will post.

I will post questions about science on the Science and Technology forum, where they belong.




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: soundstyle

Ok speaking from a technical background in the construction industry before 9/11 thermal loadings were never I will repeat that NEVER looked at to the same degree as WIND or SIESMIC loads only basic assumptions were made.

That all changed after 9/11.

The ultimate aim of fire protection is to allow the occupants to get out safely if it then saves or reduces damage to the building that's a bonus.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

Well you will still have the wrong forum then because truthers ideas of construction/physics of 9/11 are FANTASY.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
A little public service announcement from your friendly staff.

This thread was started by some well meaning members as a place where people could go to ask generic questions about physics. it's been an enjoyable read, for the most part. And now I'm forced to get snarky.

there's a separate forum for 9-11. If you have any commentary or questions related to those events specifically, please post them there. Any further attempts to drag 9-11 topics into this thread will from this point forward be deleted as OFF TOPIC.

Any questions or complaints about this should be submitted here as they will also be deleted from this thread as off-topic.

Thanks for your attention.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
In 2005 the new phenomenon low temp thermal expansion was not known by NIST, or for whatever reason it was not reported.
This is 9/11 specific about NIST 9/11 reports so is off-topic in this thread, and it's about building engineering. It has nothing to do with any "new" physics. You haven't cited anything in the NIST report about new physics. You are citing another ATS member who as best has a misunderstanding and at worst is being untruthful about this whole "new physics" idea. As Eros already explained the engineers can change their engineering model by deciding what physics to include and how to include it, and they are always trying to get the most accurate models they can.

Thermal expansion at low temperatures is addressed in this 1974 document on expansion joints in buildings, so please stop calling it new physics:

Expansion Joints in Buildings

Now do we know more about how thermal expansion can affect buildings than we did 40 years ago? You bet, just like any other area of science and engineering we've made progress in 40 years, but this is in engineering. The physics of thermal expansion related to buildings hasn't changed, and there's nothing in the report to suggest otherwise. If you can cite a passage about new physics in the NIST report on 9/11 events, then make a thread about it in the 9/11 forum, invite me to it via private message , and I'll respond there, but you can't because I read the report and know it doesn't mention new physics, so please stop posting off topic here.

Please recall the origin of this thread. You were complaining about people asking general physics questions in your thread about proof of an electric sun, and as a courtesy to you to get people to post their physics questions in a more appropriate location, I created this thread so people would stop posting off-topic in your thread. You even thanked me for doing it and even if we disagree on some issues, I hope you will show me the same courtesy I showed you when I created this thread to get people to stop posting off-topic in your thread.

a reply to: yeahright
Thank you for redirecting the 9/11 specific material to the appropriate forum.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join