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.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 16
99
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Do you want engineers to spoon feed you everything you demand? You have the blueprints, if you don't know the density of steel go look it up.


It's been NINE YEARS!!!

It's 489 lb/sq foot. I looked it up years ago. But that doesn't explain why the GREAT engineers haven't been talking about the weight of steel on every level for all that time.

How is it these GREAT engineers haven't mentioned the weight of a complete floor assembly? They have been arguing about whether they pancaked or not long enough. Curious bit of information that hasn't just happened to get mentioned a lot in NINE YEARS.

Where do you ever even see the 600 tons specified for just the floor slab outside the core?

It's pretty damned obvious that skyscrapers must get heavier toward the bottom but where have the engineers discussed that?

This ain't about me. Why haven't they told EVERYBODY. If Newtonian physics dictates that the collapse was IMPOSSIBLE then why not explain it that way with correct data. You brought up the computer simulations. How do you do computer simulations without correct data?

I wrote one already but it is somewhat magical without physical supports so it only computes the conservation of momentum.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

I have been trying to get it to simulate the behavior of my physical collapse model since that gives me an empirical reference. It seems to be more difficult than I expected to simulate the mutual crush of the paper loops but I would have thought engineering schools had software for this type problem decades ago. It is similar to automobiles with crush zones.

psik




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Typical "educated" BS taking the simple and being ten times as wordy and complicated as necessary.


I was elaborating because dereks didn't understand my quick explanation. Does this resentment towards the educated stem from you not being intelligent enough to make it into engineering school or something?


You can try playing psychoanalyst all you want but how is this:


The downwards force due to gravity acting on the top section remains constant at all times (let's call it 1.0W, where W=the weight of the top section). The only other significant force acting on the top section in the vertical direction is the upwards reactional force provided by the lower structure (which is initially holding the top section up with an equal and opposite force of 1.0W).

As the heavily damaged initiation zone gives way, the initiation zone is now producing less than 1.0W of upwards reactional force on the top section, resulting in a net downwards force acting on the top section.


simple? You have to tell him that gravity is a "downward force".

It sounds more like you want to believe other people are stupid and explain pompously to keep them that way.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. We know gravity defines DOWN.

"1.0W of upwards reactional force"

ROFLMAO

psik
.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SurefireII
reply to post by w00dhAK
 


You claim in your experience inspectors were jack wagons? Is that because you lack the intellect to become one? Better yet, is it because we as inspectors actually made sure you did your job, which usually was half assed work at best. Without the inspection services, construction would never meet code because of the lame ass, union workers that claim they have a skill.
By the way, you claim all of this profound knowledge, but as a Foreman/Supervisor, which by the way isnt saying much..


Yes, in my experience most 'building inspectors' are jack wagons.. Instead of answering my question and the other point I made about fireproofing I see you chose to attack my credibility, which I might add is a Complete failure.

First off, you know absolutely nothing about me or my intellect which has nothing to do with this discussion in the first place..as for my half-assed work, again You have no basis for that claim especially the 'being a Union worker' part..I learned my trade from the ground up and got to where I am through experience..I've never been in a Union, but your comment was interesting.

If You knew anything about construction you would know that the Foreman's job would be doing the Layout and making sure the work is preformed correctly so it does pass 'inspection', I do 'Your' job before You do. I have no reason to hide from the fact I am partially responsible for any issues pertaining to My job and the people working with me. Not sure where you got the 'profound knowledge' bit from, but hey..it works for me.

I'm also not a 'truther'..I'm an American citizen that questions the official story of 9/11, I've watched many video's about 9/11, I've read hundreds of articles/reports and have done as much research as I can stand..as for 'natural gravity' I don't think anyone is disputing that, it's the collapsing at near Free Fall speed that makes Me think more than twice about the OS.

You of All people should be greatly concerned about the facts of those collapses, estimations of total collapse being just over the length of time it would take to drop a bowling ball off the roof..110 floors of concrete and Steel!

I could add more but I've already went further than I wanted, I normally don't get involved in these discussions but your rather abrasive 1st post inspired me..



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


No I mentioned how I was wrong on velocity and acceleration because I confused the equation. That's over with. I am not denying Newtonian physics. I am saying a solid pool ball is not the wtc. Great twisting!

I followed with stating the same as was just mentioned. Once the top structure fell, each floor was responsible for the weight of the entire structure above. They were not build to manage that weight. Object oriented design. You design to hold people and office material, not a whole other sky scrapper. The floor fell, adding to the mass of the falling and in turn its momentum. You or somebody asked if it decelerated. Yes. Collision causes deceleration. It does not, however stop the structure nor stop its own acceleration. You see you can have deceleration within an acceleration equation, but the sum total speed gain can be positive. At a certain mass and momentum, the structure becomes irrelevant to deceleration. This is visible towards the end of the collapse. Mostly it seems linear in speed, then some acceleration towards the end. Watch any video. You can see it yourself. In fact you can see a massive part of the side structure keeping up, then falling some time after the main collapse. how exactly, now do demos keep the outer structure standing for a few seconds if it was a total collapse? Or perhaps you should simply accept it as pancaking. A failure of hierarchy. Inner structure falls, floors fall with it, gain up mass, and the outer structure gets sucked down with it. Some of the outer structure remains en route down because it failed structurally, not an explosion. If the hierarchy fails, then the structure least hierarchically dependent survives. As expected, that was the outer structure which is seen standing for a few additional seconds.



So yea, pretty much, if you want to draw straws rather than debate I have no problem with that. Just don't expect a logical mind to take it honesty.

Pool balls move have no foundations and are solid whole structures. If a plane flew into a mountain, it would be better compared. You can't use pool ball physics on the wtc. To state that is simply ignoring architectural and structural facts.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Azp420
 


Once the top structure fell, each floor was responsible for the weight of the entire structure above. They were not build to manage that weight. Object oriented design. You design to hold people and office material, not a whole other sky scrapper. The floor fell, adding to the mass of the falling and in turn its momentum. You or somebody asked if it decelerated. Yes. Collision causes deceleration. It does not, however stop the structure nor stop its own acceleration. You see you can have deceleration within an acceleration equation, but the sum total speed gain can be positive. At a certain mass and momentum, the structure becomes irrelevant to deceleration. This is visible towards the end of the collapse. Mostly it seems linear in speed, then some acceleration towards the end.


I think we have a problem with the use of the word FLOOR.

I have made a habit of using either FLOOR or LEVEL and I mean different things.

By floor I mean the horizontal portion that people walk on, usually that huge floor outside the core. Many people are trying to blame the "collapse" on that tube in tube design which gave that huge floor area.

By LEVEL I mean a 12 foot high section of the building including 12 feet of columns in the core with their beams and 12 feet of columns around the perimeter.

Every LEVEL had to be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above. This meant the core and perimeter columns became thicker and therefore heavier. The perimeter box columns look the same all of the way up the building but that was just the outside. The walls of the boxes were thicker toward the bottom.

The core of the top falling portion of the north tower had to come down on the core of the lower stationary portion. That did not have anything to do with the floor outside the core. The core columns were connected by beams so those beams had to hit each other. That would begin the deceleration of the top portion.

So 14 LEVELS that had to get lighter and weaker going up were falling on 95 LEVELS that had to get STRONGER and HEAVIER all of the way down but we are supposed to believe that could collapse in less than 18 seconds.

Totally Idiotic!!!

But then our nitwit experts don't talk about the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every LEVEL.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to believe that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition???
I find it hard to believe that a plane crashed into a tower, the jet fuel heated up to a freakishly high (higher than it's supposed to) temperature and then managed to melt steel columns which gave way in a manner that would cause a building to collapse in a pancake fashion... AND THIS HAPPENED to 3 buildings! Plus one of these buildings NEVER EVEN GOT HIT BY A PLANE! What are the odds of all 3 these buildings demolishing in the manner that they did?

These two towers were demolished and they didn't even collapse as smoothly as the twin towers.

Athlone Towers



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing
 


I find it hard to believe for a variety of reasons. Chief amongst them is the fact that the collapses started exactly at the points where the planes impacted.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


All the questions in this post have been answered previously in the thread.

I also notice you have done nothing with the information you requ

reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You can try playing psychoanalyst all you want


Bingo. Now you play wannabe engineer on youtube.


simple? You have to tell him that gravity is a "downward force".

It sounds more like you want to believe other people are stupid and explain pompously to keep them that way.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up. We know gravity defines DOWN.

"1.0W of upwards reactional force"

ROFLMAO


If you were familiar with free body diagrams you would understand the huge importance of clearly defining the direction of forces. I have obviously used descriptions instead of a diagram. What would you have named the upwards reactional force? Simply saying "reactional force" leaves it open to confusion about what I mean and the direction.

Good work trying to find fault with that post though, is that the best you could come up with? Keep running with that engineer's guild conspiracy theory you have, it's quite entertaining.



reply to post by Gorman91
 


A nice amount of made up physics mixed with claims of deceleration with no evidence to back it up.

And no, you eying from a video what "seems" like deceleration is not evidence.


reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



I find it hard to believe for a variety of reasons. Chief amongst them is the fact that the collapses started exactly at the points where the planes impacted.


I think the idea was to make it look like planes and fires caused the collapses...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
I think the idea was to make it look like planes and fires caused the collapses...





Either that, or planes and fires caused the collapse.

And I'd love to see a Truther theory on how the collapses could, with absolute precision, be made to start at the impact points. I imagine it'll involve super advanced technology, hundreds of 'insiders' and a tortuously contorted piece of logic that could benefit from a major slice of Occam's razor.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


So your reason for believing the OS is because you don't think anyone could come up with technology that allows for the initiation point of a controlled demo to be specified after the demolition material has been placed?

I respect your opinion but I personally do not agree with it.

The truth movement is mainly about disproving the OS in hopes of a new investigation rather than attempting to prove every aspect of an alternate theory, as that would be impossible without an uninhibited investigation.

May I ask how you justify the large accelerations of all three collapses (and lack of significant decelerations)?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Azp420
I think the idea was to make it look like planes and fires caused the collapses...





Either that, or planes and fires caused the collapse.

And I'd love to see a Truther theory on how the collapses could, with absolute precision, be made to start at the impact points. I imagine it'll involve super advanced technology, hundreds of 'insiders' and a tortuously contorted piece of logic that could benefit from a major slice of Occam's razor.


OK they had a half hour or so after the impacts to do their final programming. The charges had been placed long before, software written and tested, but there was time to make final adjustments to the software running the detonation program, perhaps as little as setting the parameter for the floor level where the plane went in.

Occam's firmly on my side.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


So your reason for believing the OS is because you don't think anyone could come up with technology that allows for the initiation point of a controlled demo to be specified after the demolition material has been placed?

I respect your opinion but I personally do not agree with it.

The truth movement is mainly about disproving the OS in hopes of a new investigation rather than attempting to prove every aspect of an alternate theory, as that would be impossible without an uninhibited investigation.

May I ask how you justify the large accelerations of all three collapses (and lack of significant decelerations)?





I don't believe "The OS". I just don't agree that the buildings were demolished.

I do however agree that it's possible that some sort of extraordinary explosive could be engineered that is sophisticated enough to survive cataclysmic plane crashes and then be triggered by some other means.

I just think it's very, very unlikely.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass

OK they had a half hour or so after the impacts to do their final programming. The charges had been placed long before, software written and tested, but there was time to make final adjustments to the software running the detonation program, perhaps as little as setting the parameter for the floor level where the plane went in.

Occam's firmly on my side.


See my answer above. Your theory requires

- Explosives that don't go off when planes strike them

- Explosives that are relatively extremely quiet

- A painstaking and difficult installation

- Unscrupulous and highly trained people to accomplish that installation

- Sophisticated software and unscrupulous engineers to run it

- Both of the above groups to operate in absolute secrecy



My theory requires

- Some people on the internet to be wrong



So no, Occam is not "on your side".



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
...
My theory requires

- Some people on the internet to be wrong



So no, Occam is not "on your side".

Well no. The important thing that your theory requires is that the building collapse just like a demolition, without the actual demolition.

And that WTC7 collapse just like a demolition, for no particular reason at all.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

TrickoftheShade I know your replying to oniongrass but I would like to ask a few questions and present some of my perspective.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
See my answer above. Your theory requires
- Explosives that don't go off when planes strike them

Is it a must that they don't go off during the impact of the planes? Are you assuming that no explosives went off during impact and that none were damaged during the fire. It's possible that some could have gone off and some could have been damaged but does this matter?


- Explosives that are relatively extremely quiet

Why quite explosives? Weren't there sounds heard and recorded that resembled explosions before and during collapse of all three buildings?


- A painstaking and difficult installation
- Unscrupulous and highly trained people to accomplish that installation
- Sophisticated software and unscrupulous engineers to run it
- Both of the above groups to operate in absolute secrecy

What secrecy? Isn't there evidence that describes at least a contradiction to the official story that is the cause for such debates as the ones found in this thread? I think I know what your point is, no one has come forth and admitted that they were involved in planting explosives. Do you think anyone would actually do this? If no one does ever come forth does this mean it didn't happen?

I agree with you that this would be very difficult to do and I can not imagine how anyone could be so unscrupulous as to do something like this but this is no proof to the contrary. It is from my lack of the ability to imagine how anyone could be so morally corrupt as to do such a thing that has caused the most difficulty for me.

I don't know what your theory is but if it is against the use of explosives then it requires much more than some people on the internet being wrong. I am not sure what to think of the evidence claimed to have been found proving explosives were used. I mean, this evidence could have been planted or those claiming to have this evidence could be lying...I suppose.

However the one thing I cannot deny is the rate of accelerations of all three towers on that day! How three large buildings could fall in the manner in which they did without the aid of some mechanism other than gravity is beyond reason. It is illogical and unreasonable to expect anyone to accept the official story and I am certain that this is not just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass

Well no. The important thing that your theory requires is that the building collapse just like a demolition, without the actual demolition.

And that WTC7 collapse just like a demolition, for no particular reason at all.


Things may occasionally resemble other things. This is the way of the world.

The fact remains that your theory of events requires a series of enormously unlikely contingencies. You're welcome to believe what you like, but there's no point pretending that yours is a simple and elegant narrative.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino

Is it a must that they don't go off during the impact of the planes?


I would assume so. Unless they are so discrete that they won't set further explosives off and then bring the building down instantly.

Furthermore they must presumably not detonate in the immediate aftermath of the plane strike, as floors collapse, walls are pulverised and debris settles. A gap of a few moments would surely have made the explosions obvious?



Are you assuming that no explosives went off during impact and that none were damaged during the fire. It's possible that some could have gone off and some could have been damaged but does this matter?


I can't see any evidence at all for this. I admit it's possible but it seems to me highly unlikely. There's no footage or sound to that effect.





Why quite explosives? Weren't there sounds heard and recorded that resembled explosions before and during collapse of all three buildings?


At the initiation of the collapse there are none. Witnesses spoke of the eerie quiet as the buildings began to fall.

There are some loud bangs some time before the collapse and after the airplane strike, but they seem to me to occur at the least likely time: long after the plane hit the building and some time before the buildings fell. Furthermore there is evidence of similar noises in other non-demolition collapses.


What secrecy? Isn't there evidence that describes at least a contradiction to the official story that is the cause for such debates as the ones found in this thread? I think I know what your point is, no one has come forth and admitted that they were involved in planting explosives. Do you think anyone would actually do this? If no one does ever come forth does this mean it didn't happen?


You're right, that is what I mean - there is apparently total secrecy.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible that no one would come forward. I'm saying it's unlikely that there are significant numbers of people who would happily take part in an event like this, that the practicality of recruiting them would be difficult - imagine if you approached someone and they told you they wouldn't countenance such a thing? Your operation is compromised - and that subsequently keeping them quiet would be tricky.

No, it's not "impossible". But the assertion above was about Occam's razor, about simplicity. To me it adds another layer of complication to an already overburdened theory.



I agree with you that this would be very difficult to do and I can not imagine how anyone could be so unscrupulous as to do something like this but this is no proof to the contrary. It is from my lack of the ability to imagine how anyone could be so morally corrupt as to do such a thing that has caused the most difficulty for me.


I'm not suggesting that there aren't large numbers of venal, even evil, people in the world. But Truthers would have you believe in a sizeable cabal of completely unscrupulous murderers waged against a larger, but weaker, population of the righteous. I think this is horribly simplistic. And it's apocalyptic, paranoid and, in my opinion, factually incorrect.




I don't know what your theory is but if it is against the use of explosives then it requires much more than some people on the internet being wrong.


Well, actually it doesn't. Switch off the computer and 9/11 conspiracy theories don't fare very well. Almost all the evidence for them is here, on the internet. And - again in my opinion - is manipulated, squeezed and dusted up to appear more compelling than it actually is.

If you like you can U2U me some ideas for some primary source material that I can look at. But with respect I doubt you'll be able to. Truthers tend to be comfortable looking at youtube or recycling information from blogs. There is precious little research of a genuine, real-world nature.

An example - there is a frequent poster here who pores over photographs of Shanksville looking for inconsistencies. He then asks for these to be explained to his satisfaction. He has, to my knowledge, never bothered to do any actual investigation - contacting coroners, responders, even witnesses himself. This is a tendency I see repeated everywhere.





I am not sure what to think of the evidence claimed to have been found proving explosives were used. I mean, this evidence could have been planted or those claiming to have this evidence could be lying...I suppose.


I assume you're referring to Steven Jones' work. Personally I don't find it at all persuasive, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it.


However the one thing I cannot deny is the rate of accelerations of all three towers on that day! How three large buildings could fall in the manner in which they did without the aid of some mechanism other than gravity is beyond reason. It is illogical and unreasonable to expect anyone to accept the official story and I am certain that this is not just my opinion.


It's certainly not just your opinion. There are lots of people who share it. In my view - and again with respect - I think you're wrong. The speed of the collapse is slower than usually assumed by conspiracists.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Unless you were there with a hightech laser scanner then everything you've ever posted about it is based on those same videos, making your "science" just as "made up" as mine. So yea, how about more than just your almighty word that says what is right and wrong?

reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The inner structure failed, the floors fell, gaining mass from the floor above them pushing down. The combined deceleration and acceleration forces caused mostly constant speed down as anybody can see.

Once that was gone, the inner structure fell apart in the way visible in all cameras, because it was basically a house of cards by that time.

The term level becomes useless because the hierarchy of each level became nonexistent as pieces of each level fell at different rates.

Not idiotic at all. A failure of hierarchy. Nothing more.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The inner structure failed, the floors fell, gaining mass from the floor above them pushing down. The combined deceleration and acceleration forces caused mostly constant speed down as anybody can see.


By "inner structure" do you mean the core?

How do you know? Did you see it? Can you tell us how many tons of steel were on each level of the core?

People who have decided to BELIEVE that airliners could destroy the towers in less than two hours are rationalizing backwards. To analyze this we need accurate information about the state of the buildings before the planes hit.

It didn't take NINE YEARS to design the buildings.

It didn't take NINE YEARS to construct the buildings.

But in the NINE YEARS since the destruction of the buildings the EXPERTS can't even tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers but we are supposed to listen to their arguments about what did or did not happen.

RIDICULOUS!!!


The term level becomes useless because the hierarchy of each level became nonexistent as pieces of each level fell at different rates.


Even more RIDICULOUS!!!

Rhetorical bullsh!t that has nothing to do with physics or engineering. It is relevant to analyzing what forces could possibly cause them to FAIL and then fall. You are rationalizing backwards by BELIEVING your preferred conclusion.

psik

[edit on 2-9-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
There always seems to be some either really idiotic people that can't or won't see the truth when it's right in front of them.
OR
There is always an abundant supply of s**t stirrers that stick to the ofFISHYul story or try to defend it with the usual "swamp gas" bulls**t.
Wonder why they work so hard at it? Personally, I'd like to see who's paying them to do so.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join