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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by jprophet420
The question answers itself; can you find a single example of a building taking asymmetrical damage and collapsing symmetrically?
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..
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Where is ANOK's? I've been asking him to supply back up.
Will you ask him too?
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?
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?
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.
Reply to Joey Canoli
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.
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.