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: 15
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


GoodOlDave are you HowardRoark?

Long time lurker here and I've seen a few disinfo agents come through. You can tell because they're good enough to attempt their job, and bad enough not to be able to hide it very well.

You try too hard to fit in with what's "normal" and "accepted" according to "society." "GoodOlDave"...
You are either a very very "simple" person or else you are nothing but a living billboard for fascism. And neither possibility is flattering. I bet you know jthomas real well too?




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Good points here .. all of which should have been investigated...and weren't !
America can make no step forward until it cleans this 9/11 fraud/murder up...everything depends on arresting the culprits and prosecuting them...which will never happen...so IMO...America is finished. Living here on the Gulf of Petrol we are waiting for all this oil and dispersants to wash up on our beaches...
but EPA announced that the oil is GONE...what do you mean gone??? Sunk to the ocean floor, been sucked up, or never was there to begin with...?? Was this a false flag op as well????
Most people I speak to don't have the slightest idea that 9/11 was a demolition, as shown in EVERY MSM piece put out that day and the next....that really scares me....not that it happened...but the average joe doesn't have a clue...nine years later!! Oh well..... these days.. life seems to be just one bad news headline to the next....
WHAT I SURE COULD USE...IS A LITTLE GOOD NEWS !!!!!!!!

Blessings all



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The objective is to UNDERSTAND not Believe.

It's called PHYSICS!


No, its called pseudoscience. Looks real techincal, sounds real techincal but in the end, its just parlor tricks.

Building the model should be your last step, not your first. You should be able to prove your propsed findings on paper first as a mathematical model. You don't build models to see what will happen because then all that proves is what happens to that model.

Another for instance - I see in your little youtube video you lifted the top pieces and then dropped them on the lower ones. What was the mathematical bases for the distance you dropped them? Right now all your model proves is what happens to that particular model under those particular circumstances.


And you are too dumb to do parlor tricks.

Have you considered how boring and tedious it is to cut strips of paper and put them into loops with celophane tape and then test them to see how many washers it takes to crush them. But then you want to suggest something as idiotic as matchsticks. What are you suggesting hold the matchsticks in vertical positions?

You are just advertising even greater stupidity.

All you can come up with is rhetorical trash.

Now you want to try to appear intelligent by bringing up mathematics. This thread on Gregory Urich's website has my Python program that simulates gravitational collapses of 110 levels and farther down the thread there is a simulation of my 33 level model. Have fun! I don't believe for a second that you will understand it. LOL

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OverrunThePerimeter
GoodOlDave are you HowardRoark?

Long time lurker here and I've seen a few disinfo agents come through. You can tell because they're good enough to attempt their job, and bad enough not to be able to hide it very well.


If you don't believe anything else I tell you, then believe this-

1) I am exclusively Good Ol' Dave. I have never used anyone else's name because I don't need to. I have the truth on my side, and it's never the truth that needs to run and hide from falsehoods. It's always falsehoods that need to run and hide from the truth.

2) You are letting your own abject paranoia control your life, with this "I'm a secret agent sent to spy on you" bit. Instead of trying to connect the dots that aren't there to determine whether I'm some secret agent, how about actually showing how anything I said here is incorrect?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The objective is to UNDERSTAND not Believe.

It's called PHYSICS!


No, its called pseudoscience. Looks real techincal, sounds real techincal but in the end, its just parlor tricks.

Building the model should be your last step, not your first. You should be able to prove your propsed findings on paper first as a mathematical model. You don't build models to see what will happen because then all that proves is what happens to that model.

Another for instance - I see in your little youtube video you lifted the top pieces and then dropped them on the lower ones. What was the mathematical bases for the distance you dropped them? Right now all your model proves is what happens to that particular model under those particular circumstances.


Have you ever noticed that mathematics requires data to be plugged into the variable in the equations?

How was I supposed to figure out how many washers a paper loop could hold without empirical testing?

People today act as though science comes out of books and mathematics is more important than reality. But the information in those books is the result of people having tested things first to evenfigure out which equations corresponded to reality. People now have backwards ideas about science.

DUH! Mathematics is more important than physics!

YEAH RIGHT!

Physics was happening long before there was mathematics.

psik



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How was I supposed to figure out how many washers a paper loop could hold without empirical testing?


How does an engineer figure out how many piles need to be installed to hold up the building? Does the engineer go out there and simply start to install piles and adding foundation until the building fails or the building is big enough to satsify the owner's requirements? Never mind, its all moot anyway.

All your little model proves is what happens to your model under those particlur circumstances. The only other things you could say accurately are that if you lift something up and release it, it will fall and that loops of copy paper will hold up metal washers impaled about a wood pole.

There's a thought - what happens if you elimnate the pole in your little model and then drop the weights? Does your model staty intact or does it fall all apart like the world trade center towers? Maybe that's something you can say with certainty, if the towers had been built around a massive monolithic center pole then maybe they would not have collapse as much! I can't imagine that it would have a lot real world application, but its a neat idea.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How was I supposed to figure out how many washers a paper loop could hold without empirical testing?


How does an engineer figure out how many piles need to be installed to hold up the building? Does the engineer go out there and simply start to install piles and adding foundation until the building fails or the building is big enough to satsify the owner's requirements? Never mind, its all moot anyway.


No it is not moot. The engineering books contain the necessary data for the engineers to do their calculations from. The empirical data was collected and put into the books decades ago. It is only after that can the calculations be done.

Who is going to make books on the structural strength of paper? LOL

You have just found a new way to be ridiculous.

psik



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The engineering books contain the necessary data for the engineers to do their calculations from. The empirical data was collected and put into the books decades ago. It is only after that can the calculations be done.


So why not take the data from the reference books, build a mathematical model and test your theory? Then if anyone questions it they are free to use the same data from the same reference books? Why choose to use material's of questionable capacity and unknown consistency to build a real world model that proves nothing more than the capacity of that particluar model?

Just for fun, use the same materials they used in the world trade center, and the same dimensions.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
So why not take the data from the reference books, build a mathematical model and test your theory? Then if anyone questions it they are free to use the same data from the same reference books? Why choose to use material's of questionable capacity and unknown consistency to build a real world model that proves nothing more than the capacity of that particluar model?

Just for fun, use the same materials they used in the world trade center, and the same dimensions.


So tell us the weight of one of those floor assemblies that some people say pancaked.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report years ago. It ain't there.

How much energy was required to crush each level of the tower? Why haven't the EXPERTS that claim the building collapsed provide that information?

You expect to send people off on a wild goose chase but you can BELIEVE whatever stupid nonsense you want.

Let's see you build a self supporting structure that CAN COLLAPSE.

Did you run my Python program yet? LOL

psik



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I like how alot of trusters claim to have the "truth." about 911 untill the aniversary comes around and the government and msn revise the OS yet again.How many times can they continue to change thier version of events untill you guys realise that's how much they hold not only you but the rest of us in such contempt?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I have been following your arguments about the washer/paper model and must ask why you consider it valid.
Each paper loop is stacked between the washers and must be crushed. The building geometry was different, in that the floors were suspended between an inner core and an outer structure. The outer walls didn't have to be crushed, only separated from each floor as the collapse progressed.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I have been following your arguments about the washer/paper model and must ask why you consider it valid.
Each paper loop is stacked between the washers and must be crushed. The building geometry was different, in that the floors were suspended between an inner core and an outer structure. The outer walls didn't have to be crushed, only separated from each floor as the collapse progressed.


The core would still have to be crushed and the NIST says the floors outside the core did not pancake. Therefore the floors in the falling portion must have remained attached to the falling core. The core columns were interconnected with horizontal beams and I have never seen data on the number of beams much less there weight of beams on each level.

It is believing a collapse could even happen that fast that I find amazing but then people don't expect and DEMAND to be given all of the relevant data. It boggles the mind.

FEMA says the core was strong enough to support 1.5 times the weight of the building and the perimeter columns could handle 2.5 times. So the building was nowhere near its maximum load. A collapse at that speed is a total absurdity. But most OCT believers have hardly investigated anything.

So we should at least be told the energy required to to crush each level of the core. But of course that would present a problem if it was greater than the potential energy of the building. ROFL

I computed how much energy it takes to crush a paper loop. Dropping tw washers from 4 inches does the job. Therefore I could compare the kinetic energy available on impact in my model. It even surprised me how close it was to the amount of energy necessary to crush 9 single paper loops. But physics does tend to make perfect sense when you figure it out.

You people who believe the plane could cause all of that destruction that quickly must rationalize backwards from the conclusion. A scientific analysis means knowing the beginning conditions and figuring forward. Since skyscrapers must support their own weight and withstand the wind from any direction many things must be known about the building in advnace. Considering how many skyscrapers their are around the world that have not fallen down this pretense that info can't be had about the towers is utterly absurd. What kind of computers did they have in the early 60s compared to today?

psik



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You expect to send people off on a wild goose chase but you can BELIEVE whatever stupid nonsense you want.


Wild goose chase? I thought you said all this material was in reference books and thats what engineers use to design? Now all of a sudden its a "wild goose chase" to look up something.

The cross sections can be found on the internet. Do the calcs. Or admit you have no clue what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You expect to send people off on a wild goose chase but you can BELIEVE whatever stupid nonsense you want.


Wild goose chase? I thought you said all this material was in reference books and thats what engineers use to design? Now all of a sudden its a "wild goose chase" to look up something.

The cross sections can be found on the internet. Do the calcs. Or admit you have no clue what you are talking about.


The engineers still have to DECIDE what density and thickness of concrete to use in a particular situation. Once that decision is made they can compute the weight and then use the books to figure out how much steel is necessary to support the weight.

But we are talking about a building that was already constructed and stood for 28 years so the data should already exist. So let's see you find the weight of one of those floor assemblies of which there were 84 in each tower. You know these floor assemblies that supposedly pancaked.

www.youtube.com...

Why can't you find something that simple and specific? It shouldn't even require the intelligence to do any calculations?

Did you run the Python program yet? LOL

psik



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


A deck pan, some re-bar, a truss section and some concrete. You really do think it makes a difference, huh? Its a strawman, just like your program. Your trying to make bank on the collapse time yet the NIST even says that they do not have a precise time of the collapse.

Its going nowhere. You build parlor trick models, claim that there is no way for you to figure out how much concrete ways, claim that the weight of the floors has some significance, and yet you go to extraordinary ends to (snake program) to "prove" something is wrong that all reasonable persons, including the NIST claims is, overall, an estimate.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The core remained standing for seconds after the collapse. It had no lateral support and also failed. The outer columns worked to provide such support and when they collapsed there was nothing holding the core, laterally. This means that the only failures required were the bolts connecting the floor pan truss assemblies to the core and outer columns. [As I remember these were only 3/4 " bolts.]
If either connection failed, the outer columns would have no support and fail by collapsing outward. What has to be considered in the model is that neither the outer or inner columns have to fail in compression.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


LOL it didn't fail because there was no lateral support.

If it fell because it couldn't support itself it would not have done this...

www.youtube.com...

It turns to dust as it falls, what could cause that?

It also isn't the whole core just the corner section.

ABC talks about steel turning to dust...
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Why all the unburned paper?

[edit on 8/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



It turns to dust as it falls, what could cause that?


Hyperbole? Imagination?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The cores turned to dust. They did not ' fail'. The cores were subjected to such extreme high temps that they literally became dustified, as seen in the Spire pics, which show one core standing for a moment before literally crumbling into dust and dissipating around the area.

Both Towers were blown itno a fine dust, there were no floors doing anything but erupting into a powder. It doe not metter what was connected to what; the Towers were very strong and could never fall from fire. Unthinkable. And to turn into dust? The energy needed staggers the mind, until one gets past fire and gravity as sources!!

I believe that there is empirical evidence for small nukes in both Towers, set off in sequence at determined heights to insure total and complete destruction. Collapses result in people being crushed, but remaining basically whole, if torn. Few bodies were found and over a thousand were reduced to tiny bits so small that they were surely blown apart.

There is no lack of proof, of evidence....we that know the 9-11 events were planned and executed by the cabal need not convince anyone...those who have eyes to see will recognize the obvious and the others are either not capable of doing so or will not for reasons not explored here.

Evaporated steel and EMP effects and dustified cores means that the official story is a farce, period.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 



Evaporated steel and EMP effects and dustified cores means that the official story is a farce, period.


And all the photos of large sections of the building at ground zero- faked? The large pieces of steel sections still in storage and also sections being sent around the country - all fake too?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join