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.

 

What did & did not Cause Collapse of WTC-Journal of Engineering Mechanics

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Laugh on mate...


I do. Every time that you respond with your arguments from ignorance and incredulity.


I find it equally hilarious that you need engineering reports to understand basic physics.


Says the guy that had to be schooled by another truther about how objects accelerating at less than freefall are indeed encountering resistance.


Symmetry/Asymmetry in a system is one of the first things you learn in Engineering school.


Then maybe you should go take a class.


You cannot have symmetry from chaos.


On the contrary. Chaos means zero directional input. Now, if it is steered one way or another, that indicates there may be artifical inputs.


For any building to fall symmetrically all supporting columns would have to fail simultaneously


Only if you're going to argue (from ignorance again) that the towers should have fallen monolithically. However, the educated amongst us realize that when the individual parts - such as columns, floor pans, etc - become dis-connected, that these pieces respond to their own particular set of inputs.

Which means that the pieces may indeed be falling assymetrically, but the sum of the whole seems to be symmetric.


otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse


There was resistance. You've been humiliated on this point already.


and would cause the building to either stop collapsing


Agreed, if there is enough resistance.


or fall to the path of least resistance


Or in the direction of the only available input - namely, gravity.

But individual, non-connected pieces did just that, thus satisfying this expectation. Or are you advocating that 100% of the debris must fall off the side?


Show me ANY building that collapsed symmetrically from asymmetrical damage, if it's possible there should be examples of this phenomena. From my own research only 3 buildings have ever done this


None of them collapsed symmetrically. This is a truther lie that is used by charlatans within the truth movement to bolster their statements, and believed by the gullible/uneducated.


You got 2 stars from the usual idiots to do exactly what you complained about, answer the question at hand without any backup.

The question answers itself; can you find a single example of a building taking asymmetrical damage and collapsing symmetrically?

I would truly like to see the debate evolve beyond this stage, but we all know it wont, because no link will be posted, no evidence shown. I apologize in advance if someone can, however, and quite frankly look forward to it.




posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It was explained to you already at JREF that the estimates by Greening are close enough, and exactly why giving a more exact figure doesn't alter the results significantly.

You have no cogent rebuttal to this. You cannot explain why a more precise figure is needed.


So you can CLAIM things just like the nitwits on JREF and claim that it is an explanation.

Why can't the NIST specify the total for the concrete that was in the towers in a 10,000 page report? They did it for the steel.

When has anyone at JREF built a self supporting structure with enough mass to demonstrate inertial effects and shown that the top 15% can crush the rest?

www.youtube.com...

I demonstrated one that could not and explained how it is built so anyone can duplicate it.

What the hell does MORE PRECISE mean? Give us a number for the weight of a complete floor assembly and specify the source. If you can't even come up with a number then how can anybody say how precise it is or is not?

You can use the word cogent, I'm so impressed. So you presume to tell everybody what is and is not cogent. I am even more impressed. I notice the people at JREF are complaining about a lack of Truthers and saying so many were banned. I was banned but so was Frank Greening. So I guess anyone that points out their idiotic drivel gets banned.

forums.randi.org...

ROFL

psik



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The question answers itself; can you find a single example of a building taking asymmetrical damage and collapsing symmetrically?



As my last post shows, ANOK's argument doesn't rely on a symmetric collapse, but rather the speed of the collapse. Something that he admits to not knowing how fast it should have happened.

The symm garbage has always been a smoke screen to try and throw off the gullible that couldn't see it for what it is - an unsubstantiated claim that tries to deflect away from his too fast claim, since, as he has finally admitted to, is a claim from ignorance.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It was explained to you already at JREF that the estimates by Greening are close enough, and exactly why giving a more exact figure doesn't alter the results significantly.

You have no cogent rebuttal to this. You cannot explain why a more precise figure is needed.



So you can CLAIM things just like the nitwits on JREF and claim that it is an explanation.


I note that you have no rebuttal, even though as a physics teacher (IIRC) you can do the maths.


I was banned but so was Frank Greening. So I guess anyone that points out their idiotic drivel gets banned.



Frank got mad at someone questioning his professional integrity, and was banned for contacting another member's workplace, and trying to get them fired.

You were banned for spamming the " how much concrete was there" stupidity, and for adding absolutely zero to any of the existing threads, and wasting bandwidth..



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

You were banned for spamming the " how much concrete was there" stupidity, and for adding absolutely zero to any of the existing threads, and wasting bandwidth..


But doesn't concrete have MASS?

Doesn't mass have WEIGHT in a gravitational field?

Did WTC 1 & 2 supposedly undergo a gravitational collapse?

But didn't the designers have to make the buildings hold themselves up and therefore deal with the distribution of steel and CONCRETE?

Doesn't Gregory Urich admit that he is doing a linear interpolation of the exterior wall panel steel and does not really have accurate information?

So you get banned from JREF for pointing out relevant but missing information that they want shoved under a rug but then they call it nonsense. So back to them just CLAIMING things and expecting everyone to BELIEVE.

So where is their self supporting physical model that does actually collapse?

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Do Not Reply To This Post



EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ


This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:

Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.


Sauron
Moderator

[edit on 25/4/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
the buildings due to structural damage should at most have snapped at the impact sites making the upper part slide / snap of , leaving the rest of the building standing.

well with that said the reason why i belive it was an inside job was that 6 months prior to the attacks we visited the buildings and the cab driver who took us there said that this was the last time we would see the towers , at the time didnt think much of it but on that that sunny day while cleaning the house i got a phone call from my father telling me to switch on the tv and low and behold i saw the second impact and there they where smoking and then collapsing.

if i ever meet you cab driver ill buy you a beer for being the best sightseeing fellow ever.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Like I pointed out, you were asked to show how a difference in mass would change the collapses. You haven't done it, therefore your objections have no point, until you can show it.

You're a physics teacher, correct?

You should therefore be able to do it.

You won't cuz you know that all the challenges to your objections are baseless to the outcome, but are again just another shallow nitpick that the TM depends on.

Prove me wrong by providing the study you've been asked for. Failure to do so is your admittal that your question is inconsequential.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

The question answers itself; can you find a single example of a building taking asymmetrical damage and collapsing symmetrically?



As my last post shows, ANOK's argument doesn't rely on a symmetric collapse, but rather the speed of the collapse. Something that he admits to not knowing how fast it should have happened.

The symm garbage has always been a smoke screen to try and throw off the gullible that couldn't see it for what it is - an unsubstantiated claim that tries to deflect away from his too fast claim, since, as he has finally admitted to, is a claim from ignorance.


I see what your post does not show, which is evidence.
You equate symmetrical collapse to "smoke screen". It is what it is, no matter how you perceive it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Like I pointed out, you were asked to show how a difference in mass would change the collapses. You haven't done it, therefore your objections have no point, until you can show it.

You're a physics teacher, correct?


Here are collapse calculations with gravitational acceleration demonstrating that collapse time changes with different mass distributions.

www.thenakedscientists.com...

The drops are from 64 feet and the various mass distributions cause the collapse time to deviate from free fall by from 19% to 43%. And that is without supports having to be broken.

So JREFers can and Bazant and Greening can just make ridiculous CLAIMS on the basis of missing information and then people are supposed to prove that relevant information matters.

It's called the Conservation of Momentum. It involves mass hitting mass. So if we don't have the distribution of steel and concrete through the tower than how can any CLAIMS be regarded as valid? Oh yeah, we are all supposed to believe in physics without data.

What about that pancaking business?

www.youtube.com...

How much does one of those floor assemblies weigh and why haven't we heard that in EIGHT YEARS? When have we ever been told that?

psik

[edit on 25-4-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
It is almost amusing to keep reading these threads...one side with logic and science and history and evidence...and the other with blind faith that the Government story is true.

There are certain truly IRREFUTABLE FACTS that no ' denier of reality' caqn wiggle away from. these facts prove beyond any rational doubt that the official story is bunk. Those who deny the hard facts or ignore them must be ignored themselves as they cannot defend their participation in any discussion because of blatant refusal to acknowledge established and unquestioned facts.

The only people worthy of continued attention are those that have an open mind and are willing to accept facts. Intellectual honesty is a prerequisite for discussion, and those who will not or cannot accept hard facts must be discounted and ignored. those who want the truth, and are willing to face the irrefutable head on are welcome because they can learn and they will change their views as the evidence is presented.

Here are a few of MANY OTHER facts....hard cold facts, that no skeptic can refute OR EXPLAIN by using the official story. These facts, along with many others, prove that the simplistic and unproven official story cannot withstand even minor scrutiny.

1. DUSTIFICATION of virtually all of the concrete in both Towers.It is BEYOND scientific dispute that the ENERGY needed to reduce vast amounts of concrete into an ultrafine powder is NOT POSSIBLE in a ' collapse ' that is GRAVITY driven. This happening on 9-11 was a historical first, and for it to happen TWICE due to damage that was vastly different on the Towers defies the odds into numbers that cannot be calculated easily. Dustification cannot be explained by the account we are given by the government. Inexplicable means they cannot support their assertion, and that means they are wrong, provably so.

2. Cars and trucks, including many firetrucks and official vehicles, suffered damage that CANNOT be explained or accounted for by the official story. No matter whether you accept judy Woods explanation for these events or not, the FACT remains that the evidence points to a source of energy that could not possibly be tied to any ' collapsing' buildings whatsoever. Sheer distance from the scene proves the impossibility of any involvement of the Towers in what is seen.

Anomalous damage cannot be discounted, and must be accepted as evidence. ignoring it is dishonest. Melted engine blocks inside cars that are pristine otherwise cannot be explained away. The official story drones are so void of an excuse for this evidence that they are reduced to claiming that ' active dust ' was the cause!! Round holes in windows and buildings, cars flipped upside down, others half gone and half perfect, huge gaping holes, stories deep, where buildings once stood ( Bldg 6 ) , and other evidence that defies any collapse relationship at all.

3. Explosive projection of massive materials: A collapsing building does NOT propel material hundreds of yards away at such force that they lodge into adjacent biuldings. The films we see show explosions at corners as the ' collapse' progresses, both towers being shredded as they dustify.

Gravity, which is the ONLY energy force allowed in the official story, CANNOT pull material sideways...it can arc out as it falls, but it CANNOT project with force. gravity is simply not that robust a source. Neither Tower shows any of the expected actions of a collapse, and ALL of the actions of vast energy being expended, not only to shred the Towers, but to cause dustification as well. Gravity cannot act like this.

4. Eyewitness accounts and film evidence ( Sonnenfield for one) that proves explosions and damage totally at odds with the official story.

The damage to the lobby of Bldg. 7 is but one example. The lobbies were blown out terribly and JET FUEL cannot be used as an excuse. The Towers were made so that no fire could go down straight, and the evidence shows that explosives were used at lower levels. The strikes above CANNOT be used as an excuse for damage at the lower levels. There is ZERO evidence that fuel could have traveled down the core and caused any damage. Explosions were and are a diocumented fact, and cannot be explained by the official story.

There are many many more....I could go on all day long...but it suffices to say that one can find any number of ' inexplicable anomalies' associated with this subject that defy the oficial story.

At this stage, with all of the evidence we have, it seems to me that the only people that could swallow the official story fall into a very few categories, and I mean no personal offense to anyone that sees themselves in any of the following:

1. People who would suffer some kind of psychological breakdown if they were to accept the facts. These folks rely on a standardized worldview in order to feel comfortable in their everday lives. They do not want to know the truth if it is too upsetting, and would prefer to live in ignorance of the facts then face an unsettling reality. To accept that some of the people at the very top...the people responsible for our overall safety and security..are corrupt to the degree of mass murder and treason, would upset them to the point of possible mental depression or worse. Fear is a terrible enemy.

2. People who have an agenda; these people are either paid to try and keep the lesser educated on the ropes or do so for some other reason. Some people are just stubborn and contrary and love to argue, regardless of the quality of their stand. In any case, we know that the intelligence services use shills to try and confuse the people who are seeking the truth, and their motivation is obvious;Muddy the waters enough to where some people lose interest before making an educated decision.

I have NEVER met a truly intellectually gifted person who supported the official story: The educated KNOW that the facts cannot be reconciled with the official excuses, and to try and defend the official story insults the educated mind. The people who accept the official story are more likley to be those who do not study in detail, have little formal education and cannot debate without casting aspersions and belittling those who insist on a standard for accepting facts.

There is NO DOUBT: The official story is a lie and an insult to anyone who studies the issue. To those who DO believe all the nonsense, please ask yourselves WHY



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


I see what your post does not show, which is evidence.
You equate symmetrical collapse to "smoke screen". It is what it is, no matter how you perceive it.


This pretty ironic, but not unexpected.

You point out the lack of evidence.

Where is ANOK's? I've been asking him to supply back up.

Will you ask him too?



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The drops are from 64 feet and the various mass distributions cause the collapse time to deviate from free fall by from 19% to 43%. And that is without supports having to be broken.



Great!!

You have confirmed that a natural collapse is plausible.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The drops are from 64 feet and the various mass distributions cause the collapse time to deviate from free fall by from 19% to 43%. And that is without supports having to be broken.


Great!!

You have confirmed that a natural collapse is plausible.


ROFLMAO

You are getting more brilliant by the minute.

You think it is natural for 2 1/2 ton masses to float in the air with nothing supporting them? Are you going to try conducting a skyscraper that way? LOL

I guess you did not read FALL OF PHYSICS at all. It is just a mathematical simulation demonstrating that mass alone would slow a collapse due to the conservation of momentum. But the masses are just floating without supports. In the REAL WORLD supports would be required to hold the masses up so they would have to be broken for a collapse to occur.

You demonstrate what has been going on with 9/11 very well. Jumping to the conclusion you prefer with no competent analysis.

psik



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Where is ANOK's? I've been asking him to supply back up.

Will you ask him too?


Supply 'back up' for what?

Here is all I need for 'back up', now go educate yourself...

www.physics4kids.com...

When you're done with that you may be able to continue and understand more complex physics problems involving heat transfer, conservation of momentum, resistance/friction, angular momentum etc., so you can understand what people are saying without the need to request 'papers' or 'back ups'.

Education should be your 'back up', not someone else's. Instead of demanding more from me go do some work yourself and actually research the physics instead of just taking the word of those who support your desire to believe the OS. You have offered nothing that disputes my, and thousands of others, understanding of basic physics.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Where is ANOK's? I've been asking him to supply back up.

Will you ask him too?


Supply 'back up' for what?



1-For your so far unsupported statement that a symmetrical debris pattern is not possible under natural collapse conditions.

2- For your so far unsupported statement that the towers fell too fast. (don't expect this, since you've already admitted to be making statements from ignorance. But just thought I'd point it out again)



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420


I see what your post does not show, which is evidence.
You equate symmetrical collapse to "smoke screen". It is what it is, no matter how you perceive it.


This pretty ironic, but not unexpected.

You point out the lack of evidence.

Where is ANOK's? I've been asking him to supply back up.

Will you ask him too?


The evidence we have was broadcast on across the world on TV. The news archives are at the top of the page, and I am sure you have seen the footage. We are asking for evidence to counter ours. Either you will present it or you won't.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The evidence we have was broadcast on across the world on TV. The news archives are at the top of the page, and I am sure you have seen the footage. We are asking for evidence to counter ours. Either you will present it or you won't.


You're seriously out of touch here.

ANOK made the claim that a symmetrical collapse is indicative of an intentional CD.

I've asked repeatedly for an engineering or technical paper that supports this. That would be evidence that what he's saying is correct. So far, all he's got is a link to a website that talks about Newton's laws, but says zero about symmetry and CD.

Which of course means that he can't back that up, otherwise he would with something that clearly outlines and bolsters his statement.

IOW, he hasn't presented any argument to counter yet, other than his own words. I am responding in kind.

If he can ratchet up his game, I will too.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Reply to Joey Canoli


All you are doing here is telling us you fail to understand basic physics.

I gave you a link to educate yourself, until you do that then the discussion is pointless because you fail to understand what it being disused.

If I am wrong then please explain why it takes a lot of preparation for a demo team to make a building symmetrically globally collapse? Couldn't they just set random fires and knock a few holes in the side, sit back and watch it collapse into it's own footprint?

Of course not because physics won't allow it, they understand that, I understand that, you obviously don't.

You keep asking for more from me, yet you have nothing else to add to the discussion other than what NIST said, or someone else's interpretation of it. I have heard nothing from YOU to prove you're not doing anything other than parrot the OS.

If you think a building can symmetrically collapse through the path of most resistance, then YOU explain how that can be done in YOUR words, so I can see where your understanding is. No Greening paper, that you don't understand, or quotes from NIST. No assumptions that cannot be proved, because you know we're not allowed to make assumptions, only facts. Central core column damage is an assumption btw, not fact, and without it where is your hypothesis? (Remember FACTS only)

[edit on 4/26/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

The evidence we have was broadcast on across the world on TV. The news archives are at the top of the page, and I am sure you have seen the footage. We are asking for evidence to counter ours. Either you will present it or you won't.


You're seriously out of touch here.

ANOK made the claim that a symmetrical collapse is indicative of an intentional CD.

I've asked repeatedly for an engineering or technical paper that supports this. That would be evidence that what he's saying is correct. So far, all he's got is a link to a website that talks about Newton's laws, but says zero about symmetry and CD.

Which of course means that he can't back that up, otherwise he would with something that clearly outlines and bolsters his statement.

IOW, he hasn't presented any argument to counter yet, other than his own words. I am responding in kind.

If he can ratchet up his game, I will too.


I'm right on the money good sir.

[ANOK made the claim that a symmetrical collapse is indicative of an intentional CD.

I believe what I quoted, and asked you to refute with evidence, is not that it implies CD, but simply that asymmetrical damage causes asymmetrical collapses.

Yes, read the whole quote, nothing about CD in it.


None of them collapsed symmetrically. This is a truther lie that is used by charlatans within the truth movement to bolster their statements, and believed by the gullible/uneducated.


They fell into the path of least resistance. No one has been able to explain why there was less resistance from a steel structure than the open air around it. If i was gullible and uneducated I might believe a falling object sometime takes the path of greater resistance.



[edit on 26-4-2010 by jprophet420]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join