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.

 

Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Well I never heard the thermite theory but its stupid. Couple of problems first thermite reactions are incredibly quick . A paint with thermite would have two problems the binder in the paint would stop the reaction. The second being even if you got around that and somehow managed to keep it wet or pliable it would barely scorch the beam. The reaction may have intense heat but to damage steel it needs to continue if its over in less then a second which it would be not going to do anything other than change color. You would need a significant amount especially in paint form several inches to sustain the reaction long enough. The other problem aluminum oxide applied to steel will eventually ignite on its own id say within a year of being constructed, Problem is Steel produce iron oxide and that would start the reaction. Throw in the fact that you couldn't even begin to control spraying thermite everywhere thermite needs to be contained for the reaction to be effective. You cant use thermite anywhere gravity is not going to allow it to remain in contact.


Don't even need to discuss the nuke thing that's even dumber.




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I am not sure people believe spray on thermite, C-4 coated rebar, WTC foundation nukes, or WTC 7 fire extinguisher nukes.

But they are in articles dead serious to try and convince people they are more than plausible.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Not sure how to word this? I think the spray on thermite was the movement's way to try to explain office fires that could melt steel to a molten material.

Then the movement finally got melt was being missed used. In context of WTC 1 and 2, melt was being missed used to describe steel becoming more pliable under heat and load. Not molten steel.

So the movement placed their eggs in the fizzle no flash CD cutting of vertical columns basket.

I am not saying there ever was molten steel at the WTC nor evidence steel was thermally cut during the collapse.

edit on 14-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Added CD



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Pretty sure the thermite theory arose not from any evidence of it but from a desperation to explain how the structure was deliberately destroyed in the absence of any signs of adequate explosions (it became the 'hushaboom' explosive). And that's despite the fact that the uses for thermite are more about construction than destruction IE it produces molten iron and is more suitable for welding iron/steel in places where other methods of welding were more difficult like railway construction in remote areas.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Models are fine to show how something looks the problem is the square cube law.

Models under load dont repilcate EXACTLY how the structure would behave, thats why when used in tv/films the results look so false.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: dragonridr

Models are fine to show how something looks the problem is the square cube law.

Models under load dont repilcate EXACTLY how the structure would behave, thats why when used in tv/films the results look so false.



Mick West put together a good demonstration model to show how progressive collapse could work


edit on 15-12-2016 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I found this video a while back. It's kinda creepy how similar the collapse looks to WTC 1 and 2. Not sure if it's a valid example how the mass of one domino can knock down the structure built from thousands of other dominos. It's about floor design, not building mass. It's got to be better than Richard Gauge and his boxes.

Guinness world record: The tallest domino structure on earth: 10.05 meter (32.9 feet)
youtu.be...



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes I have seen that before but to explain better if you built a 100th scale WTC Tower it would be about 14 ft high and 2 ft x 2ft square.

The decking the concrete floor was poured on was about 2mm thick at 100th scale thats 0.02mm.

Drop a piece or real decking it will fall to the ground like dropping a stone the scale model decking would gently float to the ground thats what I mean about models not showing accurate looking collapses.

It's perfectly possible to make a model which will replicate a pancake collapse it just truther sites go the wrong way about it but a model still looks like a model and could never show what you see with full scale materials and the DYNAMIC loading of the event.
edit on 15-12-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes I have seen that before but to explain better if you built a 100th scale WTC Tower it would be about 14 ft high and 2 ft x 2ft square.

The decking the concrete floor was poured on was about 2mm thick at 100th scale thats 0.02mm.

Drop a piece or real decking it will fall to the ground like dropping a stone the scale model decking would gently float to the ground thats what I mean about models not showing accurate looking collapses.

It's perfectly possible to make a model which will replicate a pancake collapse it just truther sites go the wrong way about it but a model still looks like a model and could never show what you see with full scale materials and the DYNAMIC loading of the event.


Yes scale is an issue. The model was only meant to demonstrate one aspect of the collapse


(post by Korg Trinity removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No understanding on what you believe?

Not able to piece together a theory of what brought down the towers?

Please tell me the more credible and realistic single theory that will cause me to abandon thermo contraction leading to inward bowing and failure of vertical columns. Some contributing factors, improper insulation, expanding floor beams forced to sag, long spans of floor only supported at the ends, floor connections not able to handle dynamic load, and lack of a traditional concrete core and columns.

After 15 years, you don't strongly believe in at least one of the conspiracy theories? CD? Thermite? Nukes? Lasers and Holograms?

Not a believer in dustification myself, but crazy Dr Wood throughly debunked CD and thermite.
edit on 15-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Fixed finger fumbles



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

No understanding on what you believe?

Not able to piece together a theory of what brought down the towers?


Please refute the law of conservation of energy... Please..... if you dare...

I simply stated a fact... there was not enough potential energy within the crash or the building above the crash that collapsed into the rest of the building for the entire building to collapse into dust!

Fact!

*snip*
 

Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated.
edit on Thu Dec 15 2016 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Or you could take the intellectual honesty test. Outline the effort to find evidence at ground zero / WTC pile?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Have fun with us.



www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?


Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST's analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.






posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Ah yes the pancake theory.... Also loads and Loads and Loads of words.... Later retracted by NIST and replaced by the piled driver.

I say Newtons Laws of Motion, another you know Law of Physics.... kind of puts that all to rest...

Take particular note of the Third Law.... which states 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction'

Applying that to the above data it reveals very clearly that what should have happened is the rate of collapse would have slowed down in direct proportion to the amount of resistance there was below....

Since there was more material mass below the collapse the rate would have slowed and stopped all together.

This is not what happened in reality however, and therefore the conclusion that either the material below the collapse was removed before it could exert a force, or additional and directly proportional amount of energy was added to the collapse to overcome the resistance.... The former is far more likely....

Please put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Korg.


edit on 15-12-2016 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You provided no counter argument with debatable facts? Your logic has shown to be wrong by different sources on different levels.

You don't understand that its about the design of floor connections and rated floor capacity? You can design a building which might have different load capacities for each floor. The roof needing to support equipment might be rated for 5,000,000 pounds. The next floor down might be only an observation deck rated for 1,750,000 pounds. The floor under that might contain a vault, so it might be rated for 3,500,000 pounds. Each floor will be economically design to used the least amount of material possible. The strength of the floors are dependent on the material and thickness of floor connections and beams.

YOU CANNOT treat the towers as a uniform inelastic solid. If the falling load strikes the floor causing the floor connections to shear, stress may never be transferred to the vertical columns.

Sorry to be repetitive. But after 15 years you don't have one theory you feel strong enough to present and outline?

edit on 15-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Years

edit on 15-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Economically


(post by Korg Trinity removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are not helping your cause. You really don't understand you cannot treat the towers as a uniform inelastic solid.

Sad that after 15 years you will not give one and outline a theory that can supersede inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You are not helping your cause. You really don't understand you cannot treat the towers as a uniform inelastic solid.

Sad that after 15 years you will not give one and outline a theory that can supersede inward bowing leading to vertical columns failures.


o.k taking you on a tangent for a moment...

but indulge me...

Watch the below then answer the question honestly...



Now answer me this.... Do you believe it is possible that David really performed magic here and read the mind of Harrison ford and magically transferred his card into an Orange??

Explain your answer.

Indulge me.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

No no... to reiterate... As the building collapsed onto the material below, the resistance from said material would have exerted an upwards force on the material coming down.... that means the rate of collapse would have slowed... in this case when you run the numbers the collpase would have slowed to a standstill..



You are dead wrong, once collapse was initiated, the load capacity of the first floor to be struck was overloaded. The mass falling has increased striking the next floor.

If all floors have the same load capacity, how would the increasing falling mass be stopped. Are you saying the first floor above ground which was rated for 2,500,000 pounds could support the mass of the other 109 floors and stopped them from falling.




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join