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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 71
420
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Out of all that I think the only thing meaningful I took away is that you don't want to talk about Bazant anymore.

The next time you want to bring him up, be a better mood to explain what you think he proved again. I really don't care any more about it than that.




posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


That is one way of showing you don't really have any arguments as of why Bazants conclusions are wrong. You can also just write "I don't know why Bazants conclusions are wrong, but it is my firm believe they are".



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
That is one way of showing you don't really have any arguments as of why Bazants conclusions are wrong.


You won't even tell me what his conclusions prove. You only whine that I'm missing the point every time I explain why his model differs from reality.

Until you explain exactly what you think he proved to begin with, since debunking the idea that his model has anything to do with reality apparently isn't good enough for you, you don't actually even have an argument at all. You're posting nonsense.
edit on 1-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I could repeat once again that his model proves that gravity alone would make collapse progress, no explosives are needed. But whats the point? It doesn't seem to come across.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I could repeat once again that his model proves that gravity alone would make collapse progress, no explosives are needed. But whats the point? It doesn't seem to come across.


The reason it doesn't "come across" is because the model he uses to illustrate this is not equivalent to the real Twin Towers, and neither do the physical events and behaviors he implies match with what physically happened. What part about that doesn't come across for you? You can't show 50-95% of the mass still in the footprints after either collapse, and neither can Bazant. He assumes all the energy is absorbed by the first floor to be impacted, which defies known physics where in reality a shock wave would propagate down the columns and distribute energy. He doesn't account for all energy sinks, especially the loss of mass that all the ejected debris represents, and I could go on and on.

Your problem is that you want to live in a delusional world. You want to see mass that isn't in the footprints, and you want to make up theories based on nothing to explain where it all went, and ignore the massive debris clouds that was thoroughly recorded sending down heavy debris in all directions, and pretend that all the mass was involved in doing the crushing instead of flying everywhere like real people with real eyeballs and brains and real video cameras recorded.

Does it mean you're right anyway if you keep arguing with me? No. It means you are stubborn and only proves my point that you like to live in a delusion. The only thing Bazant proved is that he can express his creative imagination in numbers.


Take a minute for a reality check. Just the fact that the energy would actually be dissipated across more than the first floor upon impact, as pointed out by ME Gordon Ross, makes his paper irrelevant to reality. Everything else is just beating a dead horse. But it doesn't matter how much we beat it because you're going to pretend its still alive anyway.
edit on 1-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The reason it doesn't "come across" is because the model he uses to illustrate this is not equivalent to the real Twin Towers, and neither do the physical events and behaviors he implies match with what physically happened. What part about that doesn't come across for you? You can't show 50-95% of the mass still in the footprints after either collapse, and neither can Bazant. He assumes all the energy is absorbed by the first floor to be impacted, which defies known physics where in reality a shock wave would propagate down the columns and distribute energy. He doesn't account for all energy sinks, especially the loss of mass that all the ejected debris represents, and I could go on and on.


You already came with these arguments, and I already replied to them. Why don't you reply to my answers instead? Why are you on repeat mode?

1) Mass in the footprint has nothing to do with proving gravity alone was enough to make the collapse progress. It seems to me you already agreed that the argument was pointless, why bring it up again?
2) He does not assume that all energy is absorbed by the first floor. Although I think you didn't mean to say that.
3) He greatly overestimates the energy sink by assuming all columns buckled. A refrigerator on floor 35 isn't going to change that (among a million other factors that are not in his model).




Your problem is that you want to live in a delusional world. You want to see mass that isn't in the footprints, and you want to make up theories based on nothing to explain where it all went, and ignore the massive debris clouds that was thoroughly recorded sending down heavy debris in all directions, and pretend that all the mass was involved in doing the crushing instead of flying everywhere like real people with real eyeballs and brains and real video cameras recorded.


I can't help that you are unable to see a huge pile of debris in the footprint. I posted both photographs and LIDAR images that prove this. The delusion is all on you. And you aren't even able to make clear why this is relevant. This whole mass argument is totally pointless, and it is a mystery to me why you keep bringing it up. As long as you do not reveal its relevance, we can as well argue about the color of the doorknobs.


Does it mean you're right anyway if you keep arguing with me? No. It means you are stubborn and only proves my point that you like to live in a delusion. The only thing Bazant proved is that he can express his creative imagination in numbers.

Take a minute for a reality check. Just the fact that the energy would actually be dissipated across more than the first floor upon impact, as pointed out by ME Gordon Ross, makes his paper irrelevant to reality. Everything else is just beating a dead horse. But it doesn't matter how much we beat it because you're going to pretend its still alive anyway.


Gordon Ross (mechanical engineer) work isn't accepted by any structural engineer as far as I know, and a rebuttal of his work is easily found. The energy sink as result of lower floors moving is not significant enough to invalidate Bazants conclusion.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You already came with these arguments, and I already replied to them.


Replying to them doesn't mean you are actually saying something reasonable. You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. You happen to prefer making up new theories without evidence to explain things that everyone else already understands by using the simple reasoning of: massive cloud of heavy debris visibly seen flying in every direction + heavy debris scattered all over Ground Zero after it was all over = a pretty damned obvious connection. I've even took the time to explain this to you too. It doesn't do any good. You have a belief, not an argument, and I can only argue with arguments.


Why don't you reply to my answers instead? Why are you on repeat mode?


I do answer them. You ignore them. You then post the same garbage as if you just chose not to read what I posted.


1) Mass in the footprint has nothing to do with proving gravity alone was enough to make the collapse progress.


In Bazant's paper, yes, it is directly mathematically related, and I even showed you the paper where he discussed it. He adds a percentage of mass back into the falling mass after each floor is theoretically destroyed. That mass is anywhere from 50% to 95% depending on what he's trying to justify. Do I have to post it again; is your memory that bad? What is your problem exactly?


It seems to me you already agreed that the argument was pointless, why bring it up again?


Example of you ignoring my posts, and pretending you didn't read them. Maybe your memory is so selective, you actually legitimately forgot what I posted, maybe even as you were reading it. We did not agree and I already responded to this. You posted a quote and it didn't say what you claimed it did. Go back and actually read my posts for a start.


2) He does not assume that all energy is absorbed by the first floor. Although I think you didn't mean to say that.


You're right, I didn't, and you completely misconstrued me.

I don't know what words I could use to be any clearer, so I'm just going to post a paper by a professional engineer in the UK who takes 27 pdf pages to flesh it all out for you:

www.journalof911studies.com...


3) He greatly overestimates the energy sink by assuming all columns buckled. A refrigerator on floor 35 isn't going to change that (among a million other factors that are not in his model).


The point is to be accurate, not to make up theoretical exercises as compromises for realistic assessments. No one is talking about refrigerators except you.


I can't help that you are unable to see a huge pile of debris in the footprint.


Once again, "huge" is not a quantity. "Huge" is a cop-out word. The relevant quantity is not "huge," the relevant quantity is 50-95% of the total mass of either tower. Oh that's right, you don't like thinking about that. My bad. The debris pile in either tower didn't extend beyond where the lobby used to stand, even including intact structure on the ground level. Talk about going in circles; I expect I'll be reminding you of this until we're both old men. Not "huge." 50-95% of the total mass of an entire tower (half of the total debris, to almost all of it).


Gordon Ross (mechanical engineer) work isn't accepted by any structural engineer as far as I know


That's not surprising.

There are structural engineers who post on this forum who I thought were just arguing with you about Bazant earlier, but maybe I'm wrong. I think Nutter is a civil or structural. Ask him what he thinks. Contact one of the many civil or structural engineers with AE911 and see what they think. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, especially coming from you on a subject you're already biased against.
edit on 2-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
In Bazant's paper, yes, it is directly mathematically related, and I even showed you the paper where he discussed it. He adds a percentage of mass back into the falling mass after each floor is theoretically destroyed. That mass is anywhere from 50% to 95% depending on what he's trying to justify. Do I have to post it again; is your memory that bad? What is your problem exactly?


Ok, repeat mode it is. The accretion of mass is only relevant for the collapse time. It is not relevant to prove gravity alone would make the collapse progress.


You're right, I didn't, and you completely misconstrued me.

I don't know what words I could use to be any clearer, so I'm just going to post a paper by a professional engineer in the UK who takes 27 pdf pages to flesh it all out for you:

www.journalof911studies.com...


Will take a look at a later time.



The point is to be accurate, not to make up theoretical exercises as compromises for realistic assessments. No one is talking about refrigerators except you.


"The" point? Maybe it is your point, maybe it is what you want Bazants model to be. Bazant made a simple inaccurate overestimating model that proves collapse progresses from gravity alone. It doesn't need to be more accurate in order to prove that.


Once again, "huge" is not a quantity. "Huge" is a cop-out word. The relevant quantity is not "huge," the relevant quantity is 50-95% of the total mass of either tower. Oh that's right, you don't like thinking about that. My bad. The debris pile in either tower didn't extend beyond where the lobby used to stand, even including intact structure on the ground level. Talk about going in circles; I expect I'll be reminding you of this until we're both old men. Not "huge." 50-95% of the total mass of an entire tower (half of the total debris, to almost all of it).


As long as you do not come with any meaningful analysis and do not make a point whatsoever this is all just completely irrelevant.


That's not surprising.

There are structural engineers who post on this forum who I thought were just arguing with you about Bazant earlier, but maybe I'm wrong. I think Nutter is a civil or structural. Ask him what he thinks. Contact one of the many civil or structural engineers with AE911 and see what they think. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, especially coming from you on a subject you're already biased against.


Why don't they post their physics themselves? Every time I directly ask one of those so called truther engineers to show the physics that prove collapse would arrest there is a dessert of silence. At the same time the work I have read from people that actually do the physics all conclude Gordon Ross is dead wrong. I am personally not familiarized enough with the subject, so I will just go with the general opinion of the experts.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
As for the paper, its conclusions says:


We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.


Total rubbish. First, I see no reason why all columns must have failed at once. Secondly, the unrealistic assumption that all the impact force goes into the columns was only assumed by Bazant in order to get a most optimistic scenario for arrest, not to model what actually happened and was observed. This is clearly (almost literally) stated in his paper. In reality this didn't happen at all. The top section mainly fell on the floors causing perpendicular forces on the columns, making their joints break. In this scenario, which actually happened, the resistance was much lower.

All this paper proves is that Bazants assumed unrealistic resistance, and in reality the resistance was much lower. Hence, Bazants model proves that gravity alone would make the collapse progress.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
As for the paper, its conclusions says:


We have tracked the fall of the roof of the North Tower through 114.4 feet, (approximately 9 stories) and we have found that it did not suffer severe and sudden impact or abrupt deceleration. There was no jolt. Thus there could not have been any amplified load. In the absence of an amplified load there is no mechanism to explain the collapse of the lower portion of the building, which was undamaged by fire. The collapse hypothesis of Bazant and the authors of the NIST report has not withstood scrutiny.


Total rubbish. First, I see no reason why all columns must have failed at once. Secondly, the unrealistic assumption that all the impact force goes into the columns was only assumed by Bazant in order to get a most optimistic scenario for arrest, not to model what actually happened and was observed. This is clearly (almost literally) stated in his paper. In reality this didn't happen at all. The top section mainly fell on the floors causing perpendicular forces on the columns, making their joints break. In this scenario, which actually happened, the resistance was much lower.

All this paper proves is that Bazants assumed unrealistic resistance, and in reality the resistance was much lower. Hence, Bazants model proves that gravity alone would make the collapse progress.


PLB there are huge holes in the official story, Politicians have come forward and admitted 911 was an inside job, military/intelligence people did the same, serious scientists question the legitimacy of the "investigation" and the presented scenario. Its over man. What are you here for, are you trying to convince us, or are you trying to hold on your worldview?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Ok, repeat mode it is. The accretion of mass is only relevant for the collapse time. It is not relevant to prove gravity alone would make the collapse progress.


Repeat mode is exactly right, because you consistently refuse to read my posts.

The fallacy is still present in the mathematics even when you pretend matching the collapse time is irrelevant and ignore it.



You're right, I didn't, and you completely misconstrued me.

I don't know what words I could use to be any clearer, so I'm just going to post a paper by a professional engineer in the UK who takes 27 pdf pages to flesh it all out for you:

www.journalof911studies.com...


Will take a look at a later time.


Looked at it yet?

Plenty of time to respond to my post. Why not read it now?




The point is to be accurate, not to make up theoretical exercises as compromises for realistic assessments. No one is talking about refrigerators except you.


"The" point? Maybe it is your point


I take this as an admission that you don't care about accuracy in scientific papers after all.


Bazant made a simple inaccurate overestimating model that proves collapse progresses from gravity alone.


Your religious zeal seems to force you to assume all his errors were in favor of resisting the collapse mechanism. Only goes to show that you still don't understand what the paper actually assumes, and how it differs from reality.



Once again, "huge" is not a quantity. "Huge" is a cop-out word. The relevant quantity is not "huge," the relevant quantity is 50-95% of the total mass of either tower. Oh that's right, you don't like thinking about that. My bad. The debris pile in either tower didn't extend beyond where the lobby used to stand, even including intact structure on the ground level. Talk about going in circles; I expect I'll be reminding you of this until we're both old men. Not "huge." 50-95% of the total mass of an entire tower (half of the total debris, to almost all of it).


As long as you do not come with any meaningful analysis and do not make a point whatsoever this is all just completely irrelevant.


Another cop-out.

This is a meaningful analysis because it comes straight from Bazant's work. It's a figure he used for his math and it's not based on anything real at all. You arbitrarily say there is a "huge" pile of debris in the footprints only because you are too chicken to even say 50-95% of a whole tower was in either one of them, because YOU even know how stupid that is. The debris doesn't come up beyond where the lobbies used to be even while sitting on top of intact structure on the ground level. I have to admit I must have some sick fascination to keep coming back just to see you struggle to accept the obvious.


Why don't they post their physics themselves?


First why no structural engineers, now this, next some other irrelevant question in this endless "moving the goalposts" barrage of fallacies. I have a question too: why are you concerned with a structural engineer posting physics problems for you when you can't even comprehend any of the multitude of problems with Bazant's work? You sure do have an awful hard time staying on one subject when you're talking to me, don't you?


Every time I directly ask one of those so called truther engineers to show the physics that prove collapse would arrest there is a dessert of silence.


There are papers out there to that extent already. Check the Journal of 9/11 Studies. If you intentionally avoid websites like that, it's not surprising you'd be ignorant of their contents.


At the same time the work I have read from people that actually do the physics all conclude Gordon Ross is dead wrong.


Right, Gordon Ross doesn't do physics because the people that "actually do" physics all say his physics is wrong. That makes a hell of a lot of sense. You could just say his physics is wrong, but I guess that would contradict what you just said about "truthers" not being able to prove an arrest would be possible. I honestly don't know why you post half the erroneous crap that you do, but claiming that no one, including Ross, has provided any physics, is ignorant at best, lying at worst.



I am personally not familiarized enough with the subject, so I will just go with the general opinion of the experts.


Oh, okay. This makes even more sense. The debate is too complicated for you to understand so you'll just go with the guys who somehow you know are right anyway. God, I didn't realize you were just born psychic or genius or whatever. If you had told me that to begin with you could have saved me trouble.
edit on 3-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
First, I see no reason why all columns must have failed at once.


It's because the top block of WTC1 comes straight down, all 4 corners and the antenna dropping within a small fraction of a second of each other. That means the columns themselves were destroyed and failed within the same fraction of a second. If the columns didn't all fail at the same time, then the ones resisting failure would cause a tilt to develop, like what happened briefly with WTC2. I realize this is a problem because you actually have to think about it with some common sense and I know you're already programmed to think everything I say is the opposite of common sense.


Secondly, the unrealistic assumption that all the impact force goes into the columns was only assumed by Bazant in order to get a most optimistic scenario for arrest


Why are you so afraid of using realistic assumptions for a change? Would that really be so awful, and if so, why might you think that is? All the things Bazant assumed do not add up to "a most optimistic scenario for arrest." To believe that, you'd have to be someone who was "personally not familiarized enough with the subject." He ignores reality for the specific purpose of giving himself more potential energy to work with in his model to cause the collapse to progress. I've been showing you this for pages upon pages and after posting an erroneous quote all you've been able to do is claim you're too unfamiliar with the subject. Too unfamiliar with the subject to do anything but know for a fact what it all means apparently.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's because the top block of WTC1 comes straight down, all 4 corners and the antenna dropping within a small fraction of a second of each other. That means the columns themselves were destroyed and failed within the same fraction of a second. If the columns didn't all fail at the same time, then the ones resisting failure would cause a tilt to develop, like what happened briefly with WTC2. I realize this is a problem because you actually have to think about it with some common sense and I know you're already programmed to think everything I say is the opposite of common sense.


Even when the top section fell down exactly straight (which it didn't, both were tilted), that still doesn't mean all columns need to fail simultaneously. The impact area was chaotic, not a perfect horizontal plane.


Why are you so afraid of using realistic assumptions for a change? Would that really be so awful, and if so, why might you think that is? All the things Bazant assumed do not add up to "a most optimistic scenario for arrest." To believe that, you'd have to be someone who was "personally not familiarized enough with the subject." He ignores reality for the specific purpose of giving himself more potential energy to work with in his model to cause the collapse to progress. I've been showing you this for pages upon pages and after posting an erroneous quote all you've been able to do is claim you're too unfamiliar with the subject. Too unfamiliar with the subject to do anything but know for a fact what it all means apparently.


I am not afraid to use realistic assumptions at all. Only problem is, it requires quite a lot of guess work and is much harder to model. Hence Bazant choose the most optimistic case for arrest, so he didn't need to do that guesswork. If the most optimistic case for arrest would progress, any more realistic model would also progress.

As for him not using the most optimistic case for arrest, show the physics. Show how your additional sinks are significant. For the record, I am too unfamiliar with the subject to do the physics myself, but I am quite capable to understand the work of others.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Even when the top section fell down exactly straight (which it didn't, both were tilted), that still doesn't mean all columns need to fail simultaneously. The impact area was chaotic, not a perfect horizontal plane.


And yet despite all this supposed chaos the roof line falls as a level horizontal plane.

What's stopping you from reading that paper right now, btw?


I am not afraid to use realistic assumptions at all. Only problem is, it requires quite a lot of guess work and is much harder to model. Hence Bazant choose the most optimistic case for arrest, so he didn't need to do that guesswork. If the most optimistic case for arrest would progress, any more realistic model would also progress.


That would be fine if he wasn't simultaneously allowing himself potential energy from mass he assumes is available throughout the entire collapse, without evidence. Because that is actually the exact opposite of assuming the "most optimistic case for arrest." That, among other things. Which we keep telling you. Do you listen? No. What is your problem?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yet despite all this supposed chaos the roof line falls as a level horizontal plane.

What's stopping you from reading that paper right now, btw?


The roof line is not the impact area. The impact area was not a horizontal plane.


That would be fine if he wasn't simultaneously allowing himself potential energy from mass he assumes is available throughout the entire collapse, without evidence. Because that is actually the exact opposite of assuming the "most optimistic case for arrest." That, among other things. Which we keep telling you. Do you listen? No. What is your problem?


Are you going back the the argument that the top section magically disappeared? Blaming Bazant for making unrealistic assumptions becomes a bit ironic. Magic does not exist. There is solid evidence that the top section did not magically disappear during the period it was not obscured by dust. At some point it is however obscured by dusk, and indeed, Bazant makes the absurd assumption that during this phase the top section also did not magically disspear.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The roof line is not the impact area. The impact area was not a horizontal plane.


Good observation. Now back to the roof. It was a horizontal plane, and it fell level horizontally as a plane, no more tilting than would be expected from a well-executed CD. That does not demonstrate "chaos" going on below it. That demonstrates a degree of order and coordination between a vertical motion and horizontal stability. Looking at the impact hole only makes the roof disappear in your imagination. The roof still does what I describe.



That would be fine if he wasn't simultaneously allowing himself potential energy from mass he assumes is available throughout the entire collapse, without evidence. Because that is actually the exact opposite of assuming the "most optimistic case for arrest." That, among other things. Which we keep telling you. Do you listen? No. What is your problem?


Are you going back the the argument that the top section magically disappeared?


I never once argued that the top section "disappeared," let alone anything to do with magic. Either you're confusing me with someone else or your inability to comprehend what I post is... about where it has been for the past 50 thread pages.



Blaming Bazant for making unrealistic assumptions becomes a bit ironic. Magic does not exist. There is solid evidence that the top section did not magically disappear during the period it was not obscured by dust. At some point it is however obscured by dusk, and indeed, Bazant makes the absurd assumption that during this phase the top section also did not magically disspear.


Congratulations. You have no idea what you're responding to, and are completely off the mark. All I can tell you is to go back and read my post again and forget all the disappearing and magic crap that you just came up with on your own. And then feel free to try again whenever you're up to it.
edit on 3-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Here is the thing you're missing, you don't need magic to explain why the top would have disappeared, you need Newtons laws of motion, as I have explained and you ignored.

It all seems like magic to those that don't understand.


To every action there is always opposed an[d] equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.
- Newton's Third Law of Motion, translated from the Principia's Latin...

...This is not the same thing as having a net force of zero, however. If you apply a force to an empty shoebox sitting on a table, the shoebox applies an equal force back on you. This doesn't sound right at first - you're obviously pushing on the box, and it is obviously not pushing on you. But remember that, according to the Second Law, force and acceleration are related - but they aren't identical!...
...Because your mass is much larger than the mass of the shoebox, the force you exert causes it to accelerate away from you and the force it exerts on you wouldn't cause much acceleration at all.

physics.about.com...

Pay attention to balded example.

When the floors dropped the top would exert an equal force on the bottom, we KNOW all the floors were destroyed, so if the hypothesis is that the dropping floors caused the static floors to be destroyed, then the dropping floors would also be destroyed, the dropping floors would all be destroyed before they could destroy all the static floors. When they collapse a building using verinage [sp?] it's 50% of the building dropping on 50% static floors, enough to destroy all the floors. If you have 30 floors dropping on 80 static floors, you do the math mate...(The Nth tower was only 17 floors dropping on 93)

Bazant is saying the same thing, except he doesn't address the fact that there is not enough floors, or building, left for it to be correct. That is why it seems to make sense if you don't understand the details.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11Good observation. Now back to the roof. It was a horizontal plane, and it fell level horizontally as a plane, no tilting. That does not demonstrate "chaos" going on below it. That demonstrates a degree of order and coordination between a vertical motion and horizontal stability. Looking at the impact hole only makes the roof disappear in your imagination.


It only demonstrates that the resistance was distributed more or less uniform, or at least had a symmetric distribution. Which would be expected, as the building had a symmetric structure. In no way it means that all resistance had to be overcome at one moment in time.

Just curious, do you have a technical education, and if so, which one? You seem to be struggling with concepts like this.


I never ... to it.


I rather have you formulate your argument in a clear, short and coherent manner instead of me guessing what you mean.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Just curious, do you have a technical education, and if so, which one? You seem to be struggling with concepts like this.


Wow after being proved to be wrong over and over again you have the nerve to say that?

bsbray IS an engineer, a real one, not a pretend one who doesn't understand basic Newtonian physics, and would have had to take at least physics I & II in order to get a degree in electrical engineering.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You seem to ignore 2 facts:

1) There is a bunch of collapsed floors between the lower and top section, increasing the impact force on the lower section with each floor that collapses.

2) Even when the top floors all collapse, the mass does not disappear. Instead, it is compacted in a pile of debris that is capable of the exact same function as an intact top section.




top topics



 
420
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join