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
Experts have a vested interest in making their area of expertise look complicated.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Experts have a vested interest in making their area of expertise look complicated.
That may be. Though if the consensus is that the structural collapses indicate a conspiracy that can be explained though "grade school physics", why is it that these architects and engineers can not or have not published anything about these "grade school physics"? Explaining events with simplicity is not only a representation of Occam's razor but the nature of western reductionist science. This should hardly be a challenge, especially for those architects and engineers who employ physics as a component of their jobs.
My problem with AE9/11T have many parts.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All it really says is that the simplest explanation that ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE FACTS is the most probable. It does not say what is TRUE it says most PROBABLE. But it must also account for ALL OF THE FACTS.
Now if you don't even know the distribution of steel in the building how can you say that all of the facts are accounted for? How could the steel weaken on the 81st level of the south tower in less than ONE HOUR and yet you don't know how much steel was there but there had to be enough to support another 29 stories for 29 years?
But you want to dish out this Occam's Razor crap.
Originally posted by Cassius666
Like I said, it is the debunking of the report that comes easy to the sufficiently educated. Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation, unless you are happy with replacing something somebody made up with something somebody else made up.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
All it really says is that the simplest explanation that ACCOUNTS FOR ALL OF THE FACTS is the most probable. It does not say what is TRUE it says most PROBABLE. But it must also account for ALL OF THE FACTS.
Now if you don't even know the distribution of steel in the building how can you say that all of the facts are accounted for? How could the steel weaken on the 81st level of the south tower in less than ONE HOUR and yet you don't know how much steel was there but there had to be enough to support another 29 stories for 29 years?
But you want to dish out this Occam's Razor crap.
Yep, a simple question seems to ignite the emotions when it cannot be answered. I'll try again.
Someone posted that the collapses would indicate a conspiracy through the explanation of "grade school physics". I pointed out that an organization of people whose employment relies on such physics and suspects 911 conspiracy has not published any explanation based on these "grade school physics" - something that should be relatively easy to do. Then, you posted emotional vitriol while never answering the question.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can call it an emotional outburst all you want. It doesn't change the physics.
Write a computer program with 109 masses floating in the air. Let the top 14 masses fall and compute the resulting combined masses and velocities. I have already written the program. It takes about 12 seconds for all of the masses to hit the ground. The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.
Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation....
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666
Producing an alternative scenario is a different matter, that requires an investigation....
Why?
I applied to MIT back in the day and got an interview. Now I am glad I was never accepted.
What do you mean why? Are you serious?
Because thats how you get serious and credible results, with an investigation.
Also there are many explosives.
It could turn out no explosives were used too. But testing for explosives still needs to be done,
something that hasnt been done, except by Niels and Jones and while they produced a credible paper that has been peer reviewed,
it is still all based on the samples they collected,
so an indipendent investigation by a larger team would be good to seem if they obtain the same results and finding.
Thats why there needs to be an indipendent investigation else its just all suspicion and assumptions and we already have a report based on suspicion and assumption.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can call it an emotional outburst all you want. It doesn't change the physics.
Write a computer program with 109 masses floating in the air. Let the top 14 masses fall and compute the resulting combined masses and velocities. I have already written the program. It takes about 12 seconds for all of the masses to hit the ground. The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.
So it seems you're claiming that the laws of physics were somehow broken. Interesting, because even a controlled demolition could not cause a violation of the laws of physics. It looks like someone needs to go back to the drawing board.
So why don't we have multiple independently produced but very similar tables with the steel and concrete on every level of the towers?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics can't be broken.
It is a matter of inputs and outputs. Just like in a computer simulation. If all of the inputs are known then the output should be completely predictable. At least in Newtonian Physics. If the output is different from what all of the known inputs say should happen then that means THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME UNKNOWN INPUTS.
The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.
Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GenRadek
My problem with AE9/11T have many parts.
My problem is What have all these groups arguing the OS got to gain by lying??
If they are all lying, WHAT is their motive.??
I just don't see it..
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Laws of Physics can't be broken.
It is a matter of inputs and outputs. Just like in a computer simulation. If all of the inputs are known then the output should be completely predictable. At least in Newtonian Physics. If the output is different from what all of the known inputs say should happen then that means THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME UNKNOWN INPUTS.
Such as what? You said this:
The conservation of momentum alone makes it IM0POSSIBLE for them to come down in less than 9 seconds. However the seismic data for the collapse of the north tower seems to indicate that it came down in 8.4 seconds.
Since the laws of physics can't be broken, either the source data is incorrect or the beams all had jet turbines firing them downward. A controlled demolition, as is widely suggested, isn't going to make things fall faster. There were no jet turbines pushing them down, nor electromagnets sucking from the bottom, nor evidence of controlled demolition, therefore there must be a problem with the source data.
Isn't this the sort of thing that 1,400 architects and engineers could hammer out in an afternoon if they put their minds to it? How about after ten years?