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.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I drove into Chicago when he did his dog and pony show at Chicago Circle campus in May of 2008. I got in line afterwards[sic] and asked about that.[sic]
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why doesn't Richard Gage and his cronies talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? ...
He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.
Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The question is not really how one could design a building like the WTC. There is surely a range of possible designs. And anyone guessing at the design would be asked "how do you know you're right" and he would not know, because he was just proposing one out of the set of possibilities.
The right question is what was the actual design. If NIST doesn't release the accurate data although they have it, they are obstructing the process.
Designing a building is not grade school physics or high school physics. The finished design must meet the requirements that one could think of if one was quite good at high school physics, and many other requirements as well. There is a difference between writing a symphony and appreciating a symphony. More people can do the latter than the former.
So why doesn't Richard Gage and his cronies talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers?
He gave this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. What kind of computers did they have in the early 60s when the WTC was designed? How much computing power should AE911Truth have at its disposal now?
They don't even talk about the weight of a floor assembly.
This is grade school physics.
These ENGINEERS are making this appear too complicated.
But then those degrees would not seem worth $100,000 if that grade school Newtonian physics was demonstrated to be easy.
Curious how the Empire State Building was completed 17 years before the invention of the transistor but electrical engineers aren't supposed to comprehend the physics of skyscrapers. What a joke!
Originally posted by Azp420 how the top section can accelerate through the bottom section without the bottom section providing a smaller upwards reactional force than when the top section was stationary.
yet the towers, which were designed to withstand multiple impacts from 707s with full fuel loads (plus a factor of safety) came down like a house of cards.
As that never happened, how can anyone show you?
And yet we have another truther lie, the towers were not designed for multiple hits
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I drove into Chicago when he did his dog and pony show at Chicago Circle campus in May of 2008. I got in line afterwards[sic] and asked about that.[sic]
So, you did all the above to see a man you think is nuts?
Originally posted by Azp420
So you dispute the video in the OP showing the top section accelerating into the bottom section?
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I can assure you the degrees go a bit deeper than Newtonian physics and are worth every penny.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by oniongrass
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The question is not really how one could design a building like the WTC. There is surely a range of possible designs. And anyone guessing at the design would be asked "how do you know you're right" and he would not know, because he was just proposing one out of the set of possibilities.
The right question is what was the actual design. If NIST doesn't release the accurate data although they have it, they are obstructing the process.
Originally posted by Azp420
Care to point out where you think I have gone wrong or what I have missed?
I'm sure they do. But designing a building and figuring why a 200 ton airliner could not possibly destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than two hours is a whole nuther story.
But I haven't seen any mention of the distributions of steel and concrete by the organization since then.
So I think getting this settled has to be a serious embarrasment to lots of people with degrees in engineering and physics.
Originally posted by Azp420
Kinetic energy is not a force.
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by dereks
Kinetic energy is not a force. I'm talking about forces acting on the top section using the F=ma equation. The conservation of energy method is a more complicated method (in this case it uses more approximations and estimates) of achieving the same thing.
What forces have I missed?