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 -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The explanation is there. However, it is just impossible to recreate the exact conditions, so there always has to be some guesswork. Personally I miss the gift of just knowing how crashing airliners would effect skyscrapers, it just is not obvious to me. So I require a scientific study that explains why it is impossible in order for me to be convinced. So far nobody has been able to show this to me, but I am still open to it.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Is a PhD in physics required to understand that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above it?
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Is a PhD in physics required to understand that every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above it?
If you understand the structure you know that every floor only requires to be strong enough to carry its own weight, not all floors above it. Thats what the columns are for. For the rest of your post, I am interested in the science behind the reason why the collapse is not possible, which to me is far from obvious.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then explain how a NORMAL airliner could TOTALLY destroy a very large skyscraper IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS.
And the explanation must include accurate information on the distribution of steel in building.
That is the trouble with concentrating on conspiracies instead of physics. Physics isn't about motive and opportunity it doesn't care who did it or why. It should be so obvious that an airliner couldn't do that, that this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
People with degrees in physics should spend the rest of their lives explaining why they haven't been asking about the distribution of steel in those buildings.
www.youtube.com...
Purdue needs to explain why the core columns don't move in their SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION since the NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane hit.
psikedit on 24-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
It seems to me the terms can be used as synonyms. But then again, I am neither native English speaker nor do I have a degree in it. Anyway, whats the point you are trying to make?
Originally posted by elnine
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then explain how a NORMAL airliner could TOTALLY destroy a very large skyscraper IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS.
And the explanation must include accurate information on the distribution of steel in building.
That is the trouble with concentrating on conspiracies instead of physics. Physics isn't about motive and opportunity it doesn't care who did it or why. It should be so obvious that an airliner couldn't do that, that this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
People with degrees in physics should spend the rest of their lives explaining why they haven't been asking about the distribution of steel in those buildings.
www.youtube.com...
Purdue needs to explain why the core columns don't move in their SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION since the NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane hit.
psikedit on 24-11-2010 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Excellent post I agree.
So my next question is to ask why the same issue about PHYSICS isn't applied by those who believe Real Planes ie 767-200, hit the WTC when there's irrefutable evidence it could not have happened based on the simple fact alone that Physical Laws were broken and suspended specifically for flight 175.
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Julian Assange says 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy by the American government. In fact many great minds say 9/11 wasn't an inside job. What if they are right? I have been a truther for quite a few years now.
What if we are barking up the wrong tree?
I realise there are many questions but what if?... If it wasn't a conspiracy of the Government of the time, was it only allowed to happen?
I fear that all the time we are looking at how the towers both fell, was it not just a really harsh ending to 2 planes being slammed into the WTC?
Maybe it was allowed to happen... maybe the US defences/NORAD failed?
I don't know, it's just as a truther I like to ask myself that ever important question once in a while.edit on 24-11-2010 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The columns had to get stronger toward the bottom because they supported the weight above therefore they were thicker therefore the weights of the LEVELS increased but the FLOOR assemblies were the same. So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every LEVEL from an Official Source after NINE YEARS?
Why haven't EXPERTS been demanding that information for NINE YEARS?
psik