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.

 

Jones "Peer - Reviewed" Scientific Journal Found Credible!

page: 10
96
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Just as a side note about how little the amount of people needed to be involved would be...well i have done a well documented and researched thread into the who done it...and please by all means read it as it does help to understand certain people with the right talents to pull this off. the interesting part has been the lack of replies while i was left in relative peace to keep posting the research says something to me...i am still working on the corporate angles but it is getting me in some trouble as i am personally emailing the players.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 043131p://f21Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


While I can see some of the theory you are trying to put across, it strikes me that maybe you've failed to take into account the mass of the material subsequently displaced by whats falling on top of it it seems.

So, the top part of the structure goes into free fall, causing the collapse of whats below it, and then as each floor becomes displaced, its mass is added to whats falling downwards.

You then are not dealing with the weight of simply the top parts of the building above the strike. You are dealing with a progressively increasing mass moving downwards, one floor at a time. In essence the falling mass is increasing as the collapse occurs.

So at the start of the collapse, you have the weight of the upper floors. After "n" tenths of a second you have that weight plus an additional floor, then that weight plus two additional floors and so on and so on as time progresses, moving downwards at 9.81 metres per second, per second.

Not only that, but the floors were not designed to take that weight falling on to them.

The building was designed to transfer the weight of each floor through the outer walls and through the core to the foundations. The floor spans were not designed to take any vertical loading except the small (in terms of the building) weight of people, offices and equipment stored on them - in other words the floors offer no significant resistance to the structure falling downwards whatsoever - they were fixed on plates welded to the outer walls and central core remember? And think about the damage the failure of those plates and welds will do to the columns they are attached to. Some may shear right off, others may severly weaken the structure as they fail.

With the outer structure compromised, and potentially the inner one seriously damaged at both the point of impact AND as a result of the impacts - because lets face it 130+ tons of jetliner at 400mph is not an insignificant force hitting the building and that force was transferred throughout the structue on impact, then suddenly what you decree to be impossible becomes more than possible.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


I'd missed this comment (to which I'm replying) earlier - on noticing it just now, I thought it was worth a response:

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Go and organise a peer-reviewed refutations of Dr Jones' work, get it published, then we'll see if he's wrong.

Until then, riddle me this - Why are you feigning neutrality and open-mindedness, against the irremovable backdrop of your former out-and-out hostilities towards the OP and Dr Jones on this thread?

You aren't by any chance swinging from the coat-tails of Nefermore's politically correct (yet mildly condescending) refutation of Impressme's comments?

Perfect timing! Almost seems precision-engineered to appear in 'control' of the thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Say What...if anything all things would decelerate...as each impact was occuring the whole process would slow down with each and every succesive impact....as the only force acting upon the entire structure from top to bottom would be gravity.
So just say each sucessive impact took a .1 of a sec....which would be very very very conservative....over ten floors that would be 1sec...and then 100 floor would be 10sec...now as the kinetic energy is being expended during the whole process of the collapse as in floor impacting floor impacting floor impacting floor...are you getting the picture the whole process would continually be slowing down.....there would be no other acceleration other than the force of gravity...so the whole effect would be a continual deceleration.
that is stated over and over and over.
I am not going to say that your a fool or say that your just nuts...but i am going suggest that it might be in your interest to read somemore. on it....i mean even in the bazant Zhou official report it mentions this same deceleration.
there is this wonderful thing that seems to be getting missed on your interpretations Nef...it is the resistance from the supporting structure below.....
now with my more than genorous remarks there it would have still taken 10 seconds for complete collapse and that my friend is not even in the realm of reality when you have steel structures the steel would undergo stresses....such as buckling ...and bending...all of which would slow the collapse even futher.
Did you even bother to go read the bit i posted about path of least resistance....you actually believe these buildings were made of paper...OMG.
edit on 043131p://f40Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043131p://f43Wednesday by plube because: spilling

edit on 043131p://f47Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Soloist
 

Until then, riddle me this - Why are you feigning neutrality and open-mindedness, against the irremovable backdrop of your former out-and-out hostilities towards the OP and Dr Jones on this thread?


I don't even think he's trying to feign neutrality, but maybe I've missed something.

The last post I left him was of a little length where I posed him with a few questions, like what he thinks Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. Niels Harrit and these other PhDs have to gain here, and he ignored all those to just respond to this single quote:


Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
You might as well just say, "I don't believe him because he's a "truther"


Whatever floats your boat.

Funny how you guys are the exact same way...

We have side a vs. side b, neither trusts the other. I don't see why everyone is so afraid of a neutral 3rd party handling the matter in a proper, verifiable way.



What this amounts to is he will never accept a "neutral 3rd party" that agrees with Jones, et al, because, as he says himself, he just doesn't trust anything "truthers" say, period.

Nevermind the fact that Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. Niels Harrit, etc. were neutral when they were first introduced to all of this. They say themselves that they didn't immediately suspect any of this of 9/11, it took them years until information was finally introduced to them that they had never had a chance to consider before.

According to Soloist, once you are a "truther" in his eyes then you were always and always will be a "truther" and from there on out he's not going to listen to anything you have to say.

He says "we" are the exact same way, but no, as I am saying, Jones and Harrit and the others were not the same way. They came across information, evaluated it, and decided it was a reasonable line in inquiry, and did the subsequent studies. The bottom line is Soloist and millions of others like him don't care what the evidence is, they only care about the bottom line message, and if they want to disagree with that, there is no amount of evidence that is going to make them want to know the truth behind the issues.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is for you Nef to show you a bit of how the simplified version your trying to portray is not viable as you are completely negating the crush up effect that occurs in the top of the structure falinginto the lower part of the structure...the crush down and the crush up.


Generalization of Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse
The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower must consist of two phases—the crush-down,
followed by crush-up (Fig. 1 bottom), each of which is governed by a different differential
equation (Baˇzant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313). During crush-down, the moving upper part
of tower (C in Fig. 1 bottom), having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B),
is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself. During crush-up, the moving
upper part A of tower is being crushed by the compacted debris B resting on the ground.
The separation crush-down and crush-up phases is justified by the condition of dynamic
equilibrium of compacted layer B; see Fig. 2(f) in Baˇzant and Verdure 2007. It shows that
force F c applied by layer B onto the lower part must exceed force F 0 c applied by layer B onto the
upper part by an amount equal to the weight W B of the accreting debris layer B. Thus, since
the strength difference R c − R0 c between the lower and upper parts at the contacts with layer B
is either zero or less than W B , only the lower part can be getting crushed. If random fluctuation
of column strength with a certain standard deviation s R is taken into account, the strength
difference R c − R0 c can be positive, allowing the upper part to be getting crushed temporarily.
But since W B is growing rapidly from story to story, it will exceed (R c − R0 c ) after only a few
stories, regardless of the s R -value. After that, the upper part cannot get crushed until impact
on the ground (except if the strength increase in passing from one story to the next would
exceed R c − R0 c , which, however, does not appear to be the case).


this is from a report

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It?
Zdenˇek P. Baˇzant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson

so please do not over simplify the physics involved in the calculations involved...the Steel is the biggest factor invovled in the whole senario...as not a single steel framed structure has suffered complete progressive collapse....so i guess three in one day may as well be called a miracle then.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I wish everyone in this thread a good day.

I am removing myself from participation in this thread for reasons that can not be discussed.

But I would like to remind everyone that, as members, we must be on our P's and Q's when it comes to our interactions with other members.

No matter how much someone may goad you into an emotional reaction, we must always stay cool and stick to the facts.

The truth will always win in the end and personal insults only show a lack of ability to engage in intellectual discourse.

All my best to the readers of this thread.

Cheers.

edit on 12/29/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
You ask why all these professionals would risk their careers, their reputations, and their lives to speak out against the government story of 911. Political ideology was strong enough to get even more sciencists and professoinals to prop up the lie about global warming. Science is not a priesthood and it is highly influenced by self interest, profit and politics.

What the truthers are lacking is a court room. In a court room you have expert witnesses representing both sides of an arugment. Like the global warmists, so far all you have people who all agree all talking amongst yourselves.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 



So at the start of the collapse, you have the weight of the upper floors. After "n" tenths of a second you have that weight plus an additional floor, then that weight plus two additional floors and so on and so on as time progresses, moving downwards at 9.81 metres per second, per second.

Not only that, but the floors were not designed to take that weight falling on to them.


Your theory doesn’t stand up to the visual effects of the WTC destruction.
We can watch on any of the News videos on 911 all the concrete being pulverized by a very energetic blast on every side of the WTC. This is not consistent with a natural collapse, without exsplosives.

The question you should be asking is how on earth did the concrete on the top floors become pulverized.

You can not ignore this fact, as it does not support your pancake theory. You could almost get away with this on the lower floors; however, there is not enough weight on the top floors. The weight you speak about was much lighter however, we do not know how much lighter. The biggest factor you continue to ignore is “resistance.” There was none. At least not enough to keep the buildings from coming down at freefall speed. Only demolition supports what really happened to the WTC, nothing else can stand up to the physics of demolition.


Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. 2
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. [color=gold]Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the concrete.

Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:
• [color=gold]pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
• pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
• unrecognizable pieces of metal
• pieces of paper
• dust
Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

911research.wtc7.net...



edit on 29-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


The so called data does not hold up in the least, and yes it does matter that after several investigations have been done, and almost a decade later we still got people wanting to spent millions of dollars in nothing more than a delusion during AN ECONOMIC CRISIS...

I don't trust the government, heck I have spoken ardently against things they have done, but I also know that delusions and false claims don't help with the real things going on, it just detracts people who can see that the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory has become an obsession based on delusions, and misrepresentations.

When the so called "1,200+ expert scientists" back claims like "there were pyroclastic clouds/flows from the explosions" it shows how delusional and ill informed these people are... Not to mention that the words "expert scientists" go out the window with such claims...

edit on 29-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors, and to add comments.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



When the so called "1,200+ expert scientists" back claims like "there were pyroclastic clouds/flows from the explosions" it shows how delusional and ill informed these people are...


Apparently, for you to make such a claim, you must have some evidence to support your allegations? We are talking about scientist, engineers and Architectures.
Can you explain why these people are “delusional” and “ill informed” and our government OS is not?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I don't trust the government, heck I have spoken ardently against things they have done, but I also know that delusions and false claims don't help with the real things going on, it just detracts people who can see that the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory has become an obsession based on delusions, and misrepresentations.


"Delusions" and "false claims" and "misrepresentations"... Can you apply that to the paper represented in the OP?

Let's take this from the beginning, unless you're just another troll stopping by to sling some insults and move on.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I am so glad your not an expert because you would not have a clue what the term pyroclastic flow is....it is a descriptive of the way super heated materials flow.

Pyroclastic flows that contain a much higher proportion of gas to rock are known as "fully dilute pyroclastic density currents" or pyroclastic surges. The lower density sometimes allows them to flow over higher topographic features such as ridges and hills. They may also contain steam, water and rock at less than 250 °C (482 °F) these are called "cold" compared with other flows, although the temperature is still lethally high.

now the experts use this term loosely but most appropriately to describe the way the towers pulvervised and that is what has led the incident into suspect realms...
I am not sure why i am even honoring your ignorance with a reply because of how to treat the people you respond too...but i am much more interested in solving the crimes and presenting things to others in a fair and rational manner. So i hope others will not be misled by disinformation that gets tossed onto people seeking answers...I am one of those experts....so i do take offense to your haphazard willy nilly replies.
So now we shall look at some photographic comparisons shall we....And please remember i am only talking to you in the way you talk to others....so should be no reason to get offended.








So as you can see the comparision is quite reasonable....the term pyroclastic is greek pyro=fire
clastic=broken in pieces.

so it does fit and apply quite neatly to explain the flow outward of the material from the towers...Now most people i talk to in a very equal basis when they talk the same in return...but i your case i make special allowances in your all knowing superior being than the rest of the members on ATS.
I do hope this explains somewhat to you why the term is being used by the experts.
ATS is a fantastic place to gain insights and knowledge if one is open to it....But one does need to be open to it.






edit on 013131p://f17Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It does not matter to speak to truly delusional people.
They want to believe in something, which means that the burden of evidence is on them.

But their evidence does not in any way add up, and their psychosis displays in personal attacks like a wounded animal.

We are not saying anything for sure happened, but what the OS said is total lie and we want a new investigation that is impartial with civilian oversight.
To be honest with you...

It is FRIGHTENING to think what has been hidden and how much influence the corporations have over this country, a CORPORATION in itself,
This is truly like opening Pandora's Box and we need to stop being afraid and hang for treason those that have done this to the country.

But think how deep this might go.
This could go French Revolution.

This is a mighty power that we fight. I mean behemoth.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Go and organise a peer-reviewed refutations of Dr Jones' work, get it published, then we'll see if he's wrong.


LOL! If I would say "if" you don't see the absurdity in this statement....but obviously you said it so, yeah .. LOL


That is simply fail "truther logic". Once again, get a neutral 3rd party independent team and lab to do the proper procedures and tests, then we can talk about it. Until then, the only people that will buy into this are truthers who already believe it anyway. If you're so confident Jones is correct, then you should not be afraid of having it verified!

To suggest anything else sure does seem suspicious.


Until then, riddle me this - Why are you feigning neutrality and open-mindedness, against the irremovable backdrop of your former out-and-out hostilities towards the OP and Dr Jones on this thread?




Why don't you riddle me this - Why are you posting nonsense?

If you think I'm " feigning neutrality" in this matter, perhaps it may be helpful for you to go back and actually read my posts and hopefully understand them. At this point, you are seriously mistaken.

Now, in reference to your previous off-topic, over-dramatic post directed at me, well first of all -- LOL

But I will answer this, you asked about the multiple "dust" samples...

Well, I like to apply some "truther logic" to it by saying if one thing about the story is suspect then everything else is invalid! Stick around this place and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

I know it must be hard to accept someone else can use the same tactic that your side does, but please do enjoy!



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
That is simply fail "truther logic". Once again, get a neutral 3rd party independent team and lab to do the proper procedures and tests, then we can talk about it. Until then, the only people that will buy into this are truthers who already believe it anyway. If you're so confident Jones is correct, then you should not be afraid of having it verified!


I don't think anyone is afraid of having their work verified.

Instead, we are disappointed that for every independent, neutral scientist that suddenly joins the so-called "truth movement," you just slap them with the label "truther" and claim they're not independent or neutral anymore. Basically anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and you don't trust them. You've even already admitted as much.

We get your point here already Soloist. If it doesn't match up with the official government reports, you're not going to give it the time of day. Gotcha. Loud and clear. There is nothing about your biased dismissals that can even be debated because you seem perfectly comfortable with it. Luckily real scientists aren't trained to act on faith, and you'll just have to agree to disagree with them.

Anything else you want to say, besides insults?
edit on 30-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and you don't trust them.


Sound familiar?

It should.



We get your point here already Soloist. If it doesn't match up with the official government reports, you're not going to give it the time of day.


You have apparently NOT gotten my point. But I guess that's to be expected.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and you don't trust them.


Sound familiar?

It should.


Yeah, I know, you said before that we're "exactly the same" here or something similar, but that doesn't excuse you. And no, we are not the same. I would be happy to debate the actual contents of the paper whenever you are, but so far all you are doing is pleading for a "neutral" party's opinion that by your own standards can't possibly exist unless it agrees with you. You've made it clear that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "truther" and won't be listened to. And again, no, I am not the same way. I actually use a little more than blind faith, and I keep offering you to take a closer look at this paper you apparently think is so mistaken.



We get your point here already Soloist. If it doesn't match up with the official government reports, you're not going to give it the time of day.


You have apparently NOT gotten my point. But I guess that's to be expected.


Then what is your point? Oh yeah, that you want this work reviewed by a "neutral" party that aren't "truthers" and disagree with "truthers." Yeah, you can't get any more "neutral" than that.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Then what is your point? Oh yeah, that you want this work reviewed by a "neutral" party that aren't "truthers" and disagree with "truthers." Yeah, you can't get any more "neutral" than that.



Sigh.

Ok, we'll just chalk this up to one of 2 things. You either are attempting to misinterpret my point on purpose, which appears the most likely answer, or you truly aren't getting it.

Oh well, I tried.




top topics



 
96
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join