It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

page: 12
91
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:39 PM

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

Try and build a model that doesn't. Thats the real challenge.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by hooper

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

Try and build a model that doesn't. Thats the real challenge.

The 2 inch washers are 1.7 oz. each. I had to make the paper loops support the accumulating weight all of the way down. There were single loops from 1 to 11. From 12 to 28 they are double loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops.

So it gets stronger further down like a REAL skyscraper and the supports are crushable.

The falling component is also crushable and the bottom 2 loops get crushed in the collapse. It demonstrates Newton's 3rd Law and that Bazant is full of crap.

psik

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:13 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

Try and build a model that doesn't. Thats the real challenge.

The 2 inch washers are 1.7 oz. each. I had to make the paper loops support the accumulating weight all of the way down. There were single loops from 1 to 11. From 12 to 28 they are double loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops.

So it gets stronger further down like a REAL skyscraper and the supports are crushable.

The falling component is also crushable and the bottom 2 loops get crushed in the collapse. It demonstrates Newton's 3rd Law and that Bazant is full of crap.

psik

Wow! And you really think that is the model of a structrure??????

Ok, maybe my fault, I assumed a certain level of sophistication but I should know better. Build a model of a building structure that doesn't do that.

I mean, really. I could build a mechanical model like that too, but it is meaningless. The best I could say is that if your "model" was, in some layman's understanding, meant to represent the towers of the WTC then I guess the bottom floors were basically a square of steel about 50 foot thick.

And by the way - you said 15% and 85%. What about 16 and 84 or 17 and 83 or 20 and 80 or 30 and 70 or 35 and 65? Is there a point in your special world of physics that the reaction is realized? If so, when? And at what ratio? How much gravitational load may I add at each distinction?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:30 PM
911 the myth the lie the truth.

the light shines in the darkness

'Silent fear, will you hear when it's near

Unknown threat, will you fret when you've met

Silent pain, try in vain go insane

Endless rain, must refrain my distain'

Wrote a song about it, wanna hear it?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:41 PM

Originally posted by hooper

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

Try and build a model that doesn't. Thats the real challenge.

Congratulations. You are the first person on this website to make me laugh out loud.

At least kids are good for something.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 06:59 PM

Originally posted by hooper
I mean, really. I could build a mechanical model like that too, but it is meaningless.

Actually in science this is done all the time.

Psikeyhackr's model was designed to demonstrate Newtons Laws and it worked perfectly.

All you have to do is realise Newtons Laws apply also to buildings.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by hooper

Build a physical model that can support its own weight but can then completely collapse because the top 15% is dropped on the 85%.

Try and build a model that doesn't. Thats the real challenge.

Haha, I agree with VirginiaRisesYetAgain, thanks for that.

Wow! And you really think that is the model of a structrure??????

Keyword "model". Also I suggest you check your definition of "structure".

I mean, really. I could build a mechanical model like that too

If you could build one that fit the criteria you quoted, you would be 10,000 euros richer, but you can't. No one can. There are some very basic physical principles keeping the 10grand safe.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:11 PM

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

If the 9/11 Commission co-chair goes on the record saying this (one can only speculate what he'd say off the record), it makes you wonder why so many OS believers are so viciously opposed to, and express anger over the suggestion of a more thorough, independent investigation.

I guess it's because some people really can't handle having to change their beliefs so will irrationally do anything to protect their current belief system.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by hooper
Wow! And you really think that is the model of a structrure??????

Ok, maybe my fault, I assumed a certain level of sophistication but I should know better. Build a model of a building structure that doesn't do that.

I mean, really. I could build a mechanical model like that too, but it is meaningless. The best I could say is that if your "model" was, in some layman's understanding, meant to represent the towers of the WTC then I guess the bottom floors were basically a square of steel about 50 foot thick.

And by the way - you said 15% and 85%. What about 16 and 84 or 17 and 83 or 20 and 80 or 30 and 70 or 35 and 65? Is there a point in your special world of physics that the reaction is realized? If so, when? And at what ratio? How much gravitational load may I add at each distinction?

Yeah, you can talk a lot.

It is a model of physical phenomenon that supposedly destroyed the WTC.

Let's see you build ANY self supporting structure where the top 15% can crush the rest. The entire 9/11 scenario is idiotic nonsense. The heavier the structure the stronger it has to be to hold its own weight But making it stronger means adding more weight near the bottom. So the more difficult it is for the smaller top portion to crush the rest. So all we get is endless idiotic rhetoric that people claim is LOGIC.

The plane hit the north tower at the 94th level. 16 * 100/110 is 14.5 %

The south tower is different because of the tilt. The physics experts haven't explained why that tilted top portion did not keep tilting and fall down the side.

Nothing but rationalizations and distractions to justify STUPID BELIEFS.

We are in a state of societal cognitive dissonance. We have to keep high school students from understanding Newtonian physics to keep them believing in the physically impossible. Some times I can find it quite hilarious.

The 9/11 religion must be maintained. It's even funnier than creationism. They don't have videotape of the six day creation. But we have it for a supposed less than 18 second COLLAPSE. It took less than 18 seconds but it wasn't a collapse.

psik

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:25 PM

I would strongly suggest that you actually read Mr. Farmer's book, rather than hang you hat on a bunch of quotes, not given in their proper context. Mr. Farmer's conclusion, is that yes, it was Osama and his band of terrorists that were responsible for the events of that day. What he took issue with, was how the story presented by the government to the Commission was nothing more than a cover up for the incompetence and unpreparedness that had happened over a couple of decades and culminated that day. He doesnt for a second believe that the US government was in any way responsible (involved) in the attacks.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:02 PM

You are missing the point. They (the commission members themselves) talk about how the report was compromised, the staff had conflicts of interest, etc.

It doesn't matter what they BELIEVE happened, they didn't do a proper investigation! Who gives a damn what their personal opinions are, when they are telling you themselves that they were too crooked to conduct any fair investigation! Jeez.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:50 PM

Umm, no, I havent missed the point. Its the people that take the Commissioner's statements and use them in an attempt to show that it was the US Government, and not Al Qaeda, that carried out the attack that miss the point.

On 9/12/01, it was readily appearant that our elected officials had spent over 30 years dismantling our defenses and making it much easier for someone to attack us. The problem is, none of it, was done out of malice, most of it was done under good intentions, and we paid dearly for it. So, we could have held hearings to lay blame for all the bad decisions made over thirty years (which would have tarred almost every President, Senator or Congressman in that time frame) OR we could have a political whitewash to allow us to lick our wounds and get to the mission at hand.

All the crying over an "independant" investigation is based on a moronic need to place "blame" on members of the government instead of fixing what was wrong and taking out the terrorists who hate us.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Come Clean
I've always wondered something. If those buildings didn't fall how were they going to put them out? You have two of the world' tallest buildings on fire near the top. There was no way to put those fires out using conventional means.

So I started to wonder if bringing them down was the only choice that could be made.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]

They were both built with a fire containment system which diverted/sealed smoke and fire from spreading to other floors in case of a fire.

Eventually the fire would have went out on it's own with no significant damage to the structural integrity of the building.

Still waiting for them to explain where the molten steel at the base of the buildings came from.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Umm, no, I havent missed the point. Its the people that take the Commissioner's statements and use them in an attempt to show that it was the US Government, and not Al Qaeda, that carried out the attack that miss the point.

On 9/12/01, it was readily appearant that our elected officials had spent over 30 years dismantling our defenses and making it much easier for someone to attack us. The problem is, none of it, was done out of malice, most of it was done under good intentions, and we paid dearly for it. So, we could have held hearings to lay blame for all the bad decisions made over thirty years (which would have tarred almost every President, Senator or Congressman in that time frame) OR we could have a political whitewash to allow us to lick our wounds and get to the mission at hand.

All the crying over an "independant" investigation is based on a moronic need to place "blame" on members of the government instead of fixing what was wrong and taking out the terrorists who hate us.

Problem is, when we lick the wounds, we taste nothing alien there, Its all taste so familiar and the enemy is not that good to begin with. If its really true it them, its being taken care now.

What if its done us ourselves ? The curses will last forever because the truth always win. I dont feel we win in the mission.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:38 PM

OverrunThePerimeter

You are missing the point. They (the commission members themselves) talk about how the report was compromised, the staff had conflicts of interest, etc.

It doesn't matter what they BELIEVE happened, they didn't do a proper investigation! Who gives a damn what their personal opinions are, when they are telling you themselves that they were too crooked to conduct any fair investigation! Jeez.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Umm, no, I havent missed the point. Its the people that take the Commissioner's statements and use them in an attempt to show that it was the US Government, and not Al Qaeda, that carried out the attack that miss the point.

Nowhere in the previous post is there 'an attempt to show that it was the US Government'.

On 9/12/01, it was readily appearant that our elected officials had spent over 30 years dismantling our defenses and making it much easier for someone to attack us. The problem is, none of it, was done out of malice, most of it was done under good intentions, and we paid dearly for it. So, we could have held hearings to lay blame for all the bad decisions made over thirty years (which would have tarred almost every President, Senator or Congressman in that time frame) OR we could have a political whitewash to allow us to lick our wounds and get to the mission at hand.

So you prefer 'political whitewash' otherwise known as lying.

All the crying over an "independant" investigation is based on a moronic need to place "blame" on members of the government instead of fixing what was wrong and taking out the terrorists who hate us.

Once again with the government, are you sure it was them?

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:47 PM
Great post OP. My respect to you for your sacrifice.

Think about the entity that perpetrated 9/11, they're still out there, no one has brought them to justice. They're still pulling the strings behind the scenes. Once they get past this annoyance that is the Obama administration, they'll be back to business as usual.

I can imagine they're worried Obama will completely withdraw the military from Iraq and Afghanistan, as then the only way to get them back in those theaters would be with yet another false flag op.

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:06 AM

No worry, Obama things to do is in progress, that should keep him busy
Financial - tick
Healthcare - tick
Oil spill - in progress
Iran - in progress
Religious reconciliation - starting
North Korea nuclear - awaiting
China negotiation - awaiting
Uhh who knows what else in store

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:38 AM

They were both built with a fire containment system which diverted/sealed smoke and fire from spreading to other floors in case of a fire.

Eventually the fire would have went out on it's own with no significant damage to the structural integrity of the building.

Still waiting for them to explain where the molten steel at the base of the buildings came from

Please explain how this fiere/smoke system supposedly worked

The fire containment system consisted of 5/8 " sheet rock fire rated for 2 hours

Problem was that the sheet rock was penetrated by debris from the impact or dislodged - the stairways above the impact zones were blocked
by panels of sheet rock dislodged from the studs.

Explain how your mythical fire/smoke containment system works with
massive holes blasted in sides of the building by the aircraft

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:29 AM

Originally posted by vipertech0596

Umm, no, I havent missed the point. Its the people that take the Commissioner's statements and use them in an attempt to show that it was the US Government, and not Al Qaeda, that carried out the attack that miss the point.

On 9/12/01, it was readily appearant that our elected officials had spent over 30 years dismantling our defenses and making it much easier for someone to attack us. The problem is, none of it, was done out of malice, most of it was done under good intentions, and we paid dearly for it. So, we could have held hearings to lay blame for all the bad decisions made over thirty years (which would have tarred almost every President, Senator or Congressman in that time frame) OR we could have a political whitewash to allow us to lick our wounds and get to the mission at hand.

All the crying over an "independant" investigation is based on a moronic need to place "blame" on members of the government instead of fixing what was wrong and taking out the terrorists who hate us.

Is it just me or does this just sound like government propaganda?

Which department do you work for? Or do you just buy everything you see on tv without giving it any independent thought?

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 06:59 AM

Psikeyhackr's model was designed to demonstrate Newtons Laws and it worked perfectly.

And exactly what size metal washer and paper ring do you live in?

Dropping a ball also "demonstrates" gravity, however, it does nothing to explain how and why planets orbit, yet the principle is the same.

hacker built a contraption that was a "model" representing, well, metal washers and paper rings impaled on a pole and declared it a representation of the WTC towers.

new topics

top topics

91