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.

 

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

page: 13
91
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



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.


I was once debating with psikeyhackr, turn out its a misunderstanding. Now, I follow physics. Because the physic law still the same now matter how big or small.

Psikeyhackr do demonstrate it better than explaining. Instead of merely adding another load or another few washer, he impact it, and yet the structure still standing.

He have his point.

Forgot to add his vid link.
Psikeyhackr experiment


[edit on 4-8-2010 by RainCloud]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
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.


And you know all this ‘cause you were in the building and saw the debris dislodged in the stairways above the impact zones?

LOL

Stop talking out our backside.


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


It’s not mythical unless you are calling my source a liar. What’s truly mythical or might I say LEGENDARY are your claims that you know exactly what happened yet you were not there.

My source is a guy in his late fifties who worked at the buildings during their construction. He said that the ventilation shafts/elevators/staircases were designed to contain fire and smoke and it was one of the first buildings of its kind to do so in such an efficient way. They theorized that even if there was an airborne poison attack on the building, the gas would be sufficiently confined on the floors it was released on, allowing enough time for an evacuation of the building.

I would be unable to recap a 2 hour long conversation I had nearly 4 years ago accurately enough that I would feel comfortable posting it.

Go find someone like I did and I’m sure they’d be happy to explain it to you in detail.

Fire goes UP

Smoke goes UP

Physics 101

The top floors MAY have been compromised, but the bottom floors should have been perfectly fine.

The fire shouldn’t have been able to spread more than a few floors from where the impact was.

Insisting otherwise is completely ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



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.


Nice work Psikeyhackr!

Hooper, what do you fail to grasp about Psikeyhackr's ingenious demonstration of the principles involved. It's a clear, simple, and easily understood demonstration. He doesn't claim that his model duplicates the WTC towers. He's merely demonstrating that the collapse could not have happened the way the OS claims it did. He does so very well. You're retorts do nothing more than display your blind support of the OS.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Yeah. He's shown those loons at NIST for what they are. With his washer World Trade Centre.

Who's going to the papers?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Yeah. He's shown those loons at NIST for what they are. With his washer World Trade Centre.

Who's going to the papers?


No. Your sarcasm aside, I'm not suggesting he's shown the folks at NIST to be loons. They're something, but I'm sure they're not loons.

What he's done is construct a simple demonstration of a key principle. His demonstration helps people understand what happened and provokes thought about whether the top 14.5% of the towers could have crushed the remaining 85.5% in the way the OS claims.

Of course the collapse couldn't have happened the way the OS claims. It doesn't take a firefighter, an architect, an engineer, a scientist, a chemist, or a physicist to see that. His model helps those on the fence in their thought process and in their attempt to comprehend how it could have happened.

A most telling element of the OS is its utter failure to explain how the core structure of the WTC towers collapsed, because the core was not susceptible to collapse in the "pancake" fashion that the OS claims the towers came down. Even if the surrounding structure could have "pancaked", the core could not. It should have remained standing after the improbable "pancaking"of the surrounding floors.

[edit on 8/4/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


All his "demonstration" shows for sure is that when you pick something up and then let go, it falls. I think we were pretty clear on that pre-9/11.

His "demonstration", as an argument for controlled demolition, is so far from being right it isn't even wrong, its just irrelevant. At least beyond the previous point of proving that if you drop something it falls.

Can you really not see that putting together some arbitrarily selected washers and some arbitrarily selected lenghts of paper is fully meaningless as an attempt to make some comment about the strenght of a real world structure and its reactions?

I don't feel like going back and looking at the thing again, so correct me if I am significantly wrong, but I think he said that between the bottom washers he wrapped the paper around three times. Why? What does that represent? Is that the minimum required to support the above structure?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Yeah. He's shown those loons at NIST for what they are.


NIST's work speaks for itself. Testing the effects of plane impacts on fireproofing with shotguns, not releasing parameters for their models, not testing their hypothesized failure mechanism, not even being able to decide what exact time the planes impacted the buildings. Ask me about any of this, I will be more than happy to rub it in your face that none of this has been debunked. NIST sucks.


Who's going to the papers?


Which papers again? Maybe it's time we had a talk about how the news is reported in Amerika, son. There's no use lying to yourself.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Even if the surrounding structure could have "pancaked", the core could not. It should have remained standing after the improbable "pancaking"of the surrounding floors.


Even through the dust clouds, one video shows the core standing after the remainder of the building collapsed. The core was not self-supporting in the absence of the outer walls and collapsed shortly thereafter.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 





And you know all this ‘cause you were in the building and saw the debris dislodged in the stairways above the impact zones?


No - survivors in the South Tower (there were 18) coming down the only usable stairway reported panels of sheet rock blocking the stairs

had to push out of way or climb over

If had done any research would have known this....

Interview with Brian Clark



So Stanley and I went back to the stairs on the 81st floor, and we began down. The first five floors were difficult, because in certain areas dry wall had been blown off the wall and was lying propped up against the railing. We had to move it, shove it to the side. The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways. It was dark.


Liar no.. Fool - Yes, because you have no idea what you talking about,
simply repeating something don't understand....

The HVAC systems (Thats Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning) of high raise buildings are tied into the fire alrm system - when alarm is tripped the HVAC systems are designed to shut off to prevent pushing smoke and
fire through the building. Also try to keep positive pressure in stairs and
shaftways to prevent inflitration of smoke.

Problem is DOES NOT WORK IF THE WALLS ARE BREACHED !

Fire rated partition walls of WTC and elevator shafts were made of panels
of sheet rock not concrete. The walls were breached by debris from the
aircraft or shock of impact knocked panels off the studs.

The floors in tn the impact zone were also breached creating another path for fire and smoke to travel

Because of the WTC the fire codes in NYC were tightened up following 9/11

The new WTC 7 built on the site of the destroyed WTC 7 used concrete to
line the stairs and elevator shafts




The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction". The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts. The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.


The new Freedom Tower will also have its stairs and elevator shaftways
lined with 2 1/2 ft of high strength (16,000 psi ) concrete



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 



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.


People that believe the official story think the logic of analogies used in rhetoric has something to do with the logic of physics. Planets orbit through vacuum and things don't get bent and broken in the process. So pretending that that application of gravity has something to do with 9/11 is just more rhetorical bull#.

The problem with making a small model of things as big as the WTC is the inverse square law. A perfect 1/100th scale model composed of the exact same materials would have 1/1,000,000th the mass but it would be 100 times as strong as the original building in relation to its mass. Therefore a perfect model could not possibly collapse therefore any attempt to model the real possible results must compensate for the inverse square law of the strength of materials. That means using inherently weaker materials to support the smaller masses.

I tested the paper loops in relation to the washers to make the supports as weak as possible but still strong enough to support the static loads of the washers. But it still requires energy to crush the loops when the dynamic load exceeds the static load capacities.

We have wasted almost NINE YEARS on rhetorical arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with physics. That is nothing but psychological stupidity pretending to be intelligent. It is occasionally amusing for the nation that has demonstrated enough knowledge of Newtonian physics to put men on the Moon to not be able to solve a problem involving a skyscraper. Grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at the United States.

psik



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by dubiousone
Even if the surrounding structure could have "pancaked", the core could not. It should have remained standing after the improbable "pancaking"of the surrounding floors.


Even through the dust clouds, one video shows the core standing after the remainder of the building collapsed. The core was not self-supporting in the absence of the outer walls and collapsed shortly thereafter.


You can't be serious with that statement! The very solid and stable core structure could not have been brought down, reduced to rubble, and turned to powder, from the "pancaking" of the outer structures. It could only have collapsed in the manner it did through cutting of its structural members and the application of highly energetic explosive forces. Your insistence that the core could have collapsed as the OS claims clearly reveals your blind adherence to a discredited agenda.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
You can't be serious with that statement! The very solid and stable core structure could not have been brought down, reduced to rubble, and turned to powder, from the "pancaking" of the outer structures. It could only have collapsed in the manner it did through cutting of its structural members and the application of highly energetic explosive forces. Your insistence that the core could have collapsed as the OS claims clearly reveals your blind adherence to a discredited agenda.


Your incredulity is noted. I can be serious with that statement. Your experience with structural engineering must be significant to make such a claim in the absence of any evidence of such highly energetic explosive forces.
Based on your experience, how would the core have behaved had it not been explosively demolished?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by dubiousone
You can't be serious with that statement! The very solid and stable core structure could not have been brought down, reduced to rubble, and turned to powder, from the "pancaking" of the outer structures. It could only have collapsed in the manner it did through cutting of its structural members and the application of highly energetic explosive forces. Your insistence that the core could have collapsed as the OS claims clearly reveals your blind adherence to a discredited agenda.


Your incredulity is noted. I can be serious with that statement. Your experience with structural engineering must be significant to make such a claim in the absence of any evidence of such highly energetic explosive forces.
Based on your experience, how would the core have behaved had it not been explosively demolished?


I defer to your superior credentials and ask you to answer this: How could the alleged "pancaking" of the outer structure have reduced the core structures to rubble and powder without the assistance of cutting and energetic explosive forces? It simply isn't possible. However, I have an open mind and perhaps you can persuade me to see it otherwise.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by dubiousone
 


All his "demonstration" shows for sure is that when you pick something up and then let go, it falls. I think we were pretty clear on that pre-9/11.

His "demonstration", as an argument for controlled demolition, is so far from being right it isn't even wrong, its just irrelevant. At least beyond the previous point of proving that if you drop something it falls.

Can you really not see that putting together some arbitrarily selected washers and some arbitrarily selected lenghts of paper is fully meaningless as an attempt to make some comment about the strenght of a real world structure and its reactions?

I don't feel like going back and looking at the thing again, so correct me if I am significantly wrong, but I think he said that between the bottom washers he wrapped the paper around three times. Why? What does that represent? Is that the minimum required to support the above structure?


What do you use for brains?

The washers weigh 1.7 oz each. So as you go down the tower the total weight each paper loop must support increases. After 11 levels I couldn't trust single loops to support the weight. Eventually double loops were not enough. The triple loop at the bottom must support 3.5 pounds.

In my model almost all of the weight is in the washers. I think one washer weighs more than all of the paper. But in a skyscraper putting in more steel to increase the strength to support more weight means adding more weight to that level. That is why it is so absurd that the EXPERTS have not been demanding to know the amount of steel on every level since a few weeks after 9/11.

I am not talking about what did do it. I am talking about what could not do it.

My demonstration says nothing about controlled demolition. It just shows that it is absurd to think the top 15% of a self supporting structure could crush the rest. Physicists and structural engineers should have been telling us that within a few weeks of 9/11. So now that they haven't done it for almost NINE YEARS we have another problem relating to trusting experts on subjects involving simple Newtonian physics. It is also a problem for our entire educational system.

How is it that so many people can't think for themselves?

psik



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



It just shows that it is absurd to think the top 15% of a self supporting structure could crush the rest.


Sorry, all your little demonstration shows that is it won't happen with that particular construct. It proves nothing else.

Except, of course, that when you drop something it falls.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



It just shows that it is absurd to think the top 15% of a self supporting structure could crush the rest.


Sorry, all your little demonstration shows that is it won't happen with that particular construct. It proves nothing else.

Except, of course, that when you drop something it falls.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



However, I have an open mind and perhaps you can persuade me to see it otherwise.


Sorry, you've already convinced yourself that the core elements were reduced to powder without any supporting evidence, than trying to convince you otherwise would be obviously futile.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



It just shows that it is absurd to think the top 15% of a self supporting structure could crush the rest.


Sorry, all your little demonstration shows that is it won't happen with that particular construct. It proves nothing else.

Except, of course, that when you drop something it falls.


Good grief!! Did you read his post? Is that all you can say in response? Your blind adherence to the OS is showing.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Good grief!! Did you read his post? Is that all you can say in response? You really are nothing more than a blind adherent to the OS.


I'm sorry, there really isn't much to say.

The whole premise is preposterous.

Lets say instead of paper rings he used metal rings, the structure would still be technically self-supporting, but even if you dropped 99% on the last 1% there would be no damage. Why - because self-supporting is a meaningless phrase. Self supporting by what margin? 1%?, 2%?, 3%, 7000%?. Like I said, based on his meaningless criteria I could build a model wherein there would be no damage at all, can you think of a real life building where you could lift 90% of it in the air, drop on the remaining 10% and have the remaining section suffer no damage?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Good grief!! Did you read his post? Is that all you can say in response? You really are nothing more than a blind adherent to the OS.


I'm sorry, there really isn't much to say.

The whole premise is preposterous.

Lets say instead of paper rings he used metal rings, the structure would still be technically self-supporting, but even if you dropped 99% on the last 1% there would be no damage. Why - because self-supporting is a meaningless phrase. Self supporting by what margin? 1%?, 2%?, 3%, 7000%?. Like I said, based on his meaningless criteria I could build a model wherein there would be no damage at all, can you think of a real life building where you could lift 90% of it in the air, drop on the remaining 10% and have the remaining section suffer no damage?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join