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.

 

AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 13
133
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Azp420
but the bottom of the wave of destruction accelerates at a very uniform rate of about 2/3rds free fall.


See.... this is why many people just don't get physics. I don't mean to be an ass but you can not have acceleration and at the same time have uniform rates of speed. That contradicts itself in physical terms.


Yes I know. I apologise I did not make my point clear. What I mean is this:

There was a wave of destruction which traveled down the building. The bottom point of this wave of destruction accelerated constantly at ~2/3rds free fall.

I will ask you again, is it your opinion that the falling top section maintained a constant velocity, or did it decelerate?

Edit: I hope you were not confused when I said "uniform rate of acceleration". This does not mean uniform velocity. It is possible to have uniform acceleration.

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Azp420]




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Cantilever floor slab, ever heard of it? I shouldn't have to explain the principles of it to you.



Please don't embarrass yourself any further. There were no cantilever floor slabs. Do you even know what cantilever means? Do you even know what makes the difference mathematically? I do. Let me give you a hint: Moment.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Azp420
Cantilever floor slab, ever heard of it? I shouldn't have to explain the principles of it to you.



Please don't embarrass yourself any further. There were no cantilever floor slabs. Do you even know what cantilever means? Do you even know what makes the difference mathematically? I do. Let me give you a hint: Moment.


I didn't say they were employed on the towers. I was just correcting you when you said they did not exist on any structure, hoping to save you from any further embarrassment next time you wanted to make an uneducated statement like this.

Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


You can take the columns away and the triangle roof away, but the Building can still look like a Roman Temple.

If you don't understand that the WTC was a glass box that's simply sad of you. Glass box does not necessarily mean what you think it means. It's a derogatory terms for any building built in the mies van de roe style of architecture for sky scrappers. The WTC was one such building. It is therefore a glass box. In as much as you can call Flowing Water related to suburb manors because it was based off a life's work on them by FLLW.

Perhaps you should look up what iteration means.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
There was a wave of destruction which traveled down the building. The bottom point of this wave of destruction accelerated constantly at ~2/3rds free fall.


How did you measure the constant acceleration of 2/3thrds free fall? That's pretty precise you know.


I will ask you again, is it your opinion that the falling top section maintained a constant velocity, or did it decelerate?


Either or is not acceleration.



Edit: I hope you were not confused when I said "uniform rate of acceleration". This does not mean uniform velocity. It is possible to have uniform acceleration.


It is possible but then there is what is known as "terminal velocity" which means constant speed but zero acceleration. I know I'm being an ass with the physics terms but it's good to get them right. Correct?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
I didn't say they were employed on the towers. I was just correcting you when you said they did not exist on any structure, hoping to save you from any further embarrassment next time you wanted to make an uneducated statement like this.

Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.


I must have slipped into bizarro world because I can not remember making any statement about cantilevers until you did?


Yet I'm the nutter?


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

"Passenger I.D. WAS found at the Pentagon .
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(see discussion here)
haha yeah right, but the black boxes were not.

"Passenger remains WERE recovered at WTC. "
What?

This destruction of the bodies assured that no exact determination could ever be made regarding who was piloting the jets at impact, and the condition of the people on board.

911research.wtc7.net...
No where does it list hijackers remains, not to mention almost half are most certainly still alive in their respective countries...
so PULEASE!


The aircraft impacts and fires in all probability would not have destroyed a single body beyond positive identification. Nor have building collapses ever been known to destroy human remains beyond recognition. However, the buildings were destroyed in a manner that converted most of their non-metallic contents to homogeneous dust, including the bodies. This destruction of the bodies assured that no exact determination could ever be made regarding who was piloting the jets at impact, and the condition of the people on board.


Non useful, or destroyed evidence isn't a good source to prove a point.


This is one of many examples in which evidence which could either confirm or refute the official story was destroyed. For example, a finding that the people onboard Flights 11 and 175 had been killed by some means before reaching the Towers would undermine the official story of multiple hijackings. The effective cremation of the bodies eliminated most of the evidence that would support such a finding.









[edit on 22-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.


HaHa. I asked you what the mathematical difference was. If you can show me, then I'll continue to speak with you. If not, then you are not worth my time.


BTW, I gave you a hint above.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



How did you measure the costant acceleration of 2/3thrds free fall? That's pretty precise you know.


It's not that precise. You might notice I used the "~" symbol. Most engineers where I am from recognize that to mean "approximately". I will find something from AE911truth showing how it was measured in a sec.


Either or is not acceleration.


Yes, obviously. I am curious as to your stance on it. Do you believe it was constant velocity, or do you belief deceleration occurred, and why?


It is possible but then there is what is known as "terminal velocity" which means constant speed but zero acceleration. I know I'm being an ass with the physics terms but it's good to get them right. Correct?


Very good, want a cookie?

Or does this lesson imply your stance on the collapse of the towers? Constant velocity?


Yet I'm the nutter?


Hold on, I'll get the quote for you which I needed to correct you on. A gracious thank you would have sufficed.



The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.


What? No they didn't. And no they don't in every single building out there.


Ah that's the one. Now you know. You're welcome.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
And did I ever say that his experiment was null and void? No, I didn't. Just not conclusive as I have shown a thermite type reaction with gypsum.


The difference is, he took all the materials and threw them together and lit them up to simulate Ground Zero. There was no corrosion to the beam. Not even with drywall pulverized to a fine dust and with molten aluminum all over it.

You only posted videos of a guy making the stuff himself, intelligently and with human control, which is light-years of difference.



How can you prove that this kind of environment will naturally produce your drywall-thermite?


How did he conclusively prove that it didn't?


When did I say he didn't?


But what do you think he did wrong, that no such reaction as you're claiming took place? Is it just random? Should he do it 1000 more times and *maybe* something will happen? Is there something that's not being considered?

If so, the burden isn't his, but your own, to recreate the environment like he did to test and show how this can be possible in the circumstances.


Why do you think I HAVE taken an intersest in this?


It's a purely theoretical interest, until you actually demonstrate that this is a real threat to buildings or even smoldering debris of buildings.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Azp420
Haha good one, ask if I know what cantilever means when I educated you about it.


HaHa. I asked you what the mathematical difference was. If you can show me, then I'll continue to speak with you. If not, then you are not worth my time.


BTW, I gave you a hint above.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]


Not sure why we need to play games, but I'll bite. You really think I would start talking about cantilevers while having no idea what they are?

In a basic cantilever moment is max at the support end (negative from a structural point of view under the normal direction of forces) and varies down to zero at the free end. The rate at which it varies depends on the forces applied. Because there is progressively less moment that needs to be carried the further from the support, the cantilever may also decrease in size as it gets further from the support.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420


The thickness of the concrete slabs varied from perimeter to core.


What? No they didn't. And no they don't in every single building out there.


Ah that's the one. Now you know. You're welcome.


I see what you are saying now. It actually helps to quote what you are replying to. I guess I should have said that "every single building built with a floor between two columns out there". But, I thought it was a given. My bad.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
911research.wtc7.net...

here are the blue prints for the north tower
doesn't look like a glass box to me
more like concrete and steel


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by Nutter
And did I ever say that his experiment was null and void? No, I didn't. Just not conclusive as I have shown a thermite type reaction with gypsum.


The difference is, he took all the materials and threw them together and lit them up to simulate Ground Zero. There was no corrosion to the beam. Not even with drywall pulverized to a fine dust and with molten aluminum all over it.

You only posted videos of a guy making the stuff himself, intelligently and with human control, which is light-years of difference.


And yet you still have something to say? Did I NOT admit it was a valid experiment. But, so is mine. It is still inconclusive. You know why? Imagine what a grinder is. Now, imagine a 110-story building grinding itself to the ground. I know it's hard to actually come back to the sanity side...I've been there myself. But, come on. At least admit it IS possible.


But what do you think he did wrong, that no such reaction as you're claiming took place?


Professionally? Ground up aluminum.


If so, the burden isn't his, but your own, to recreate the environment like he did to test and show how this can be possible in the circumstances.


I have no burden. Put some aluminum in a grinder for a second and see what happens.



It's a purely theoretical interest, until you actually demonstrate that this is a real threat to buildings or even smoldering debris of buildings.


Are you questioning my ethics in wanting to know the truth?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 



I see what you are saying now. It actually helps to quote what you are replying to. I guess I should have said that "every single building built with a floor between two columns out there". But, I thought it was a given. My bad.


Sorry about that.

Anyway here's what I mean when I was talking about the bottom point of the wave of destruction (the leading edge of the ejections) accelerating at a uniform rate.

Watch from 8:20 to about 9:00.





[edit on 22-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
In a basic cantilever moment is max at the support end (negative from a structural point of view under the normal direction of forces) and varies down to zero at the free end. The rate at which it varies depends on the forces applied. Because there is progressively less moment that needs to be carried the further from the support, the cantilever may also decrease in size as it gets further from the support.


OK. Now we are getting somewhere. Now, what makes the difference between a cantilever and a simple beam? Moment wise? Shear wise? Bending wise? Etc.?

BTW, exactly what does this have to do with the 2 pieces of WTC7 again?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


A simple beam is simply supported at each end against vertical displacements only, not against any rotational displacements, therefore under normal loading it only experiences positive moments. If the loading is uniform, such as self-weight, the max moment in the middle of the beam is equal to w*L^2/8, where w=load per unit length, L=length of member.

Shear depends on how it is loaded but unlike moment is transferred into the joints at each end.


BTW, exactly what does this have to do with the 2 pieces of WTC7 again?


By the 2 pieces do you mean the external and internal structures? You are highlighting the point that moment is not transferred between the two pieces but shear is?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Just that statement is so acknowledging of a lack of knowledge in architecture.

mies van der rohe = Glass Box Architecture.

WTC = mies van der rohe inspired.

WTC = Glass Box iteration.

The wtc takes the idea of the glass box and makes a tetris tower out of it. Plain and simple.

The WTC is a glass box because it follows the principals and program of mies van der rohe, who invented the architecture of the WTC.

Do try to get some basic knowledge on these matters.

Take a look at TD Centre. Pretty much a black world trade center.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
A simple beam is simply supported at each end against vertical displacements only, not against any rotational displacements, therefore under normal loading it only experiences positive moments. If the loading is uniform, such as self-weight, the max moment in the middle of the beam is equal to w*L^2/8, where w=load per unit length, L=length of member.


Finally. Someone who knows of what they speak. No offense anyone else. BTW, star for your post. To not take this off topic any further, I would like to speak with you via U2U if you don't mind.

But, I still don't understand why a natural thermite like reaction is out of the the possibility. Just because someone did a test?


By the 2 pieces do you mean the external and internal structures?


No. I actually ment the 2 pieces found in the rubble. We are getting way off topic.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Nutter]



new topics

top topics



 
133
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join