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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 26
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I know they refuted the pancake theory, but it's still their hypothesis that floors fell on floors causing them to collapse right? The bowing columns BS was just the collapse initiation.


From everything I read, they (a) never modeled or attempted to offer any specific collapse mechanism once their "initiation" phase was over and the global collapse (ie 99% of either actual "collapse") began and said it was too chaotic to model, (b) claimed it was "inevitable" anyway based on their unproven initiation hypothesis, (c) claimed some sort of progressive collapse occurred, but (d) explicitly stated in their FAQs that their hypothesis is not compatible with pancake theory. That's the little I've gathered, or apparently what little there is for anyone to gather about the global collapse sequence from NIST.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by ANOK
I know they refuted the pancake theory, but it's still their hypothesis that floors fell on floors causing them to collapse right? The bowing columns BS was just the collapse initiation.


From everything I read, they (a) never modeled or attempted to offer any specific collapse mechanism once their "initiation" phase was over and the global collapse (ie 99% of either actual "collapse") began and said it was too chaotic to model, (b) claimed it was "inevitable" anyway based on their unproven initiation hypothesis, (c) claimed some sort of progressive collapse occurred, but (d) explicitly stated in their FAQs that their hypothesis is not compatible with pancake theory. That's the little I've gathered, or apparently what little there is for anyone to gather about the global collapse sequence from NIST.


Sorry, I didn't mean the OS I meant what I'd read and was debating in this thread from OS supporters, who try to explain how the complete collapse was possible once initiated.

I know it really is an irrelevant argument because it's not what the OS says, it's people confused about physics trying to fill in the holes the OS has.

Isn't 'progressive collapse' really just another term for 'pancake collapse' lol?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
moving.

If you watched that vid a bit more closely you will see a big difference between it and the WTC. The point of collapse is in the middle, so if it were the WTC it would be 55 floors dropping on 55 floors, that is enough floors to completely collapse the building. Now one of the WTC towers was 17 floors falling on 93, not going to work is it?
If you understood Newtons 3rd law and the conservation of momentum you would know why. Think about this in context to what I've said just for a minute or two.


edit on 3/14/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



UNDERLINED ABOVE you are contradicting yourself mate BECAUSE you keep stating that the load meets an equal an oppsite force DO YOU NOT, so as the taking your example 55 floors below have always held up the 55 floors above NOTHING would happen under your physics because when you are talking about 9/11 YOU GUYS NEVER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

1) The damage done by impact, fuel exploding and also the fire.

2) The load imposed on the structure below WHEN THE TOP PART FALLS IS NOT THE SAME as the static load it supported under normal conditions

3) You also do NOT take into account the floors are basically bolted to pieces of angle iron on the inside of the structure a bad design!!!

My example to you of the 100lb weight obviously went over your head it was to show the effect of a DYNAMIC LOAD ie you can carry it but if its dropped into your hand IT DOESN'T FEEL THE SAME DOES IT!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
This seems to be a case of confirmation bias. Any information that contradicts the delusion is rejected. The fact that there is the mass of a large part of the collapsed floors between the top and lower section is either ignored, or it is claimed it magically disappeared or ejected. By ignoring this mass, you end up with a faulty model with two bodies colliding, a model that perfectly fits with the idea that the collapse would arrest. I don't think this model will be given up any time soon, no matter how much facts, logic, reason, physics and maths is being thrown at the followers. Instead we will just see accusation of how everyone who rejects it is bad at physics.

It is interesting to see psychology at work though.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Where else is 15 floors of stuff going to collapse to? The side?


15 floors isn't going to go any damned where unless something happens to it. Which is why I ask you what exactly you think happened to initiate all of this.

Again, if you think all this stuff just up and fell all onto the trusses of a single floor, then you aren't reading the NIST report. According to NIST it wasn't even a "pancake collapse." You have a few years of catching up to do since they shot down that theory themselves. Too bad.
edit on 14-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


If you had read a damned thing on wtc.nist.gov you would understand that pancaking was not the COLLAPSE INITIATION, however, it WAS how collapse PROGRESSED.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Blah blah blah.....


So, when are we expecting your paper to appear in any of the reputable journals showing NIST et al. wrong?

Can I recommend a few journals?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Where else is 15 floors of stuff going to collapse to? The side?


15 floors isn't going to go any damned where unless something happens to it. Which is why I ask you what exactly you think happened to initiate all of this.

Again, if you think all this stuff just up and fell all onto the trusses of a single floor, then you aren't reading the NIST report. According to NIST it wasn't even a "pancake collapse." You have a few years of catching up to do since they shot down that theory themselves. Too bad.
edit on 14-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


If you had read a damned thing on wtc.nist.gov you would understand that pancaking was not the COLLAPSE INITIATION, however, it WAS how collapse PROGRESSED.


ROFL

The NIST does not explain how the collapse progressed. They only say it was inevitable.

It is the 9/11 RELIGION.

The IMPOSSIBLE does not need to be EXPLAINED. We are just supposed to BELIEVE.



Throw the Laws of Physics out the window and pretend the distributions of steel and concrete are irrelevant.

psik



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I could say the exact same things about some of the people within the truther movement. You defend and defend and name-call and make empty claims on a daily basis, yet when someone comes out with contradictory information, it is ignored. It's claimed "must be fake" or "they planted it!" or "doesn't matter, they still are liars and therefor we can't trust the official 'tale' at all."

In fact, I've found many of the OS supporters here to be nicer and far less inflammatory than most of the Truthers here.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
This seems to be a case of confirmation bias. Any information that contradicts the delusion is rejected.


Great, now you just have to find a mirror and you'll be set.

I've noticed the same thing for years except from the other side, and from you in particular recently. After all, who is it that keeps inventing baseless theories to explain photographs that need no explanation? You. Who is it that would rather use unrealistic variables that are contradicted by photos, just so their favorite mathematical model is possible? You. I've seen all kinds of that crap from you. It's one thing to make the accusation but it's another to actually have the dumplings to prove it.

And then people say WTC7 didn't actually fall into its own footprint because some crumbs fell into the adjacent streets, like who would ever imagine such a thing happening during a demolition, right? And just forget the 99% of the building that DID fall straight down into the footprint.
There's your confirmation bias. You'd probably back that same argument. You "debunkers" might as well not have eyes, between things like this, and denying what you see in so many other photos, or denying witness testimonies, denying whatever, you name it.



The fact that there is the mass of a large part of the collapsed floors between the top and lower section is either ignored, or it is claimed it magically disappeared or ejected.


You want to think that no significant amount of mass was ejected, don't you?

You see the footprints, there is literally nothing even resembling a building in either of them anymore all the way down to the ground level, and yet you STILL want to imagine that nothing significant was ejected.

This goes way beyond confirmation bias. This is straight ignoring what you see in photographs and imagining a complete delusion to replace it. And since I'm not a doctor or therapist I'm way out of my league even trying to explain to you why you are not seeing two buildings sitting in the footprints after they are done "collapsing."



Instead we will just see accusation of how everyone who rejects it is bad at physics.


Some time you should stop and consider to yourself, maybe you really are that bad at physics, if you don't even get that Newton's 3rd law is a law. But I wouldn't even worry about that when you can't even look at a simple photograph of Ground Zero and see the real mass distribution without going into a severe state of denial that has you inventing fantasies. It really is "interesting."



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I could say the exact same things about some of the people within the truther movement.


Some, but not the brighter ones.


Classic "truther" position: We need a real investigation because there are still far too many unresolved issues.

Classic "debunker" position: We already know everything we need to know so forget about it, nothing else to see here.


No?


My position is that we need a re-investigation. By arguing with me I only assume you people think there is no need. So what proof do you have?

You have no proof.

So you are like a religious zealot.

When I claim I already don't know, and want a real investigation, I am correct, because I know that I don't know. That isn't a religion.

If you can't see the difference here then show me what actual proof you have for your own opinions as to what happened on 9/11, and see how far you can get. That is your religion.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
If you had read a damned thing on wtc.nist.gov you would understand that pancaking was not the COLLAPSE INITIATION, however, it WAS how collapse PROGRESSED.



NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively [sic] that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


wtc.nist.gov...


I'm not going to play teacher to a kid that's too distracted to actually learn anything, but there it is in black and white.

When you're going off on these long rants that are completely based off of pancake theory, you're only embarrassing yourself when you then bring up NIST in your next post. They are mutually exclusive. That means the initiation hypothesis that NIST never verified and the global collapse they never even tried to analyze.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So now you are calling the exterior columns "nothing significant". For the rest, baseless rants.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So now you are calling the exterior columns "nothing significant". For the rest, baseless rants.





A whopping 1-line response, and that totally contradicts what I actually posted.


Read it again Annie and see if you can spot where you went 180 degrees out of phase with what I posted:


You want to think that no significant amount of mass was ejected, don't you?

You see the footprints, there is literally nothing even resembling a building in either of them anymore all the way down to the ground level, and yet you STILL want to imagine that nothing significant was ejected.

This goes way beyond confirmation bias. This is straight ignoring what you see in photographs and imagining a complete delusion to replace it. And since I'm not a doctor or therapist I'm way out of my league even trying to explain to you why you are not seeing two buildings sitting in the footprints after they are done "collapsing."




So you are saying no significant amount of mass was ejected from the buildings while they "collapsed," aren't you? That you can just make up whatever number you feel appropriate to represent how much stayed within the building, and not worry about it? And forget what you see on the ground when it's all over, because to you, there is no useful information there at all (confirmation bias -- ignoring what contradicts you).

edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So you are saying no significant amount of mass was ejected from the buildings while they "collapsed," aren't you? Come on, we all want to see how bright you are about 9/11.


Nope, thats your delusion making things up again. I am saying there was enough mass left to make the collapse progress. Clearly, the exterior columns "ejected" (maybe not the best word to describe what happened though). It was you claiming that nearly all mass, including floors and core, magically ejected, remember?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Nope, thats your delusion making things up again. I am saying there was enough mass left to make the collapse progress.


Based on what? A paper that assumes 50-95% of the mass stayed within the buildings the entire time.

You claimed this wasn't the case, but you were wrong and then started ignoring me. I am still waiting to see where you think Bazant says he didn't assume 50-95% of the mass, because I know I already posted where he said he did assume 50-95%. It's hilarious how far you have to back track over something we already covered when you are so pinned into a corner.



Clearly, the exterior columns "ejected" (maybe not the best word to describe what happened though).


Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you haven't seen videos showing them flying through the air, not leaning or tilting like a tree, and not hitting the ground and then rolling or bouncing to their final destination either. Your biggest problem is because since you can't explain the ejections, you think they don't exist and try to ignore them completely. More confirmation bias is all this is, and self-delusion. I can only imagine that the reason you can't accurately assess what you see in photos and videos is because it causes so much cognitive dissonance for you.


It was you claiming that nearly all mass, including floors and core, magically ejected, remember?


There is nothing magic about what was photographed in the footprints after the "collapses." Once again you ignore photos to imagine delusions to replace them. I suppose you think the core columns, trusses and all were still in the footprints when it was all said and done? And how would the core structure add mass to a "pancake collapse" anyway?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Based on what? A paper that assumes 50-95% of the mass stayed within the buildings the entire time.

You claimed this wasn't the case, but you were wrong and then started ignoring me. I am still waiting to see where you think Bazant says he didn't assume 50-95% of the mass, because I know I already posted where he said he did assume 50-95%. It's hilarious how far you have to back track over something we already covered when you are so pinned into a corner.


I can't help that you do not (want to) understand Bazants papers. His proof that collapse would progress does not require any mass accretion. It was only required to match observed collapse time, as been pointed out so many times.


Or maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you haven't seen videos showing them flying through the air, not leaning or tilting like a tree, and not hitting the ground and then rolling or bouncing to their final destination either. Your biggest problem is because since you can't explain the ejections, you think they don't exist and try to ignore them completely. More confirmation bias is all this is, and self-delusion. I can only imagine that the reason you can't accurately assess what you see in photos and videos is because it causes so much cognitive dissonance for you.


So now your delusional mind decided that I ignore or even deny that the exterior columns "ejected" as you call it? I not only acknowledge it, I can give a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, which I already have previously.


There is nothing magic about what was photographed in the footprints after the "collapses." Once again you ignore photos to imagine delusions to replace them. I suppose you think the core columns, trusses and all were still in the footprints when it was all said and done? And how would the core structure add mass to a "pancake collapse" anyway?


And more importantly, there is nothing significant about your laymen interpretation of the surface of the debris pile after collapse. It carries no weight whatsoever, let alone prove anything.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I can't help that you do not (want to) understand Bazants papers.


That's not it. It's that what you're claiming the paper says, it doesn't.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where he says anywhere that he doesn't use 50-95% of the mass for the entire collapse in his model. The last time you tried to post a quote from the paper it said nothing resembling what you claimed, but maybe you want to take another look at that too.


His proof that collapse would progress does not require any mass accretion. It was only required to match observed collapse time, as been pointed out so many times.


So you are saying that without any mass accumulating at all, he can make the collapse progress all the way to the ground in his model. I guess that translates into magic in the real world. I know who really doesn't understand Bazant's paper, or physics in general, and it's not me.


So now your delusional mind decided that I ignore or even deny that the exterior columns "ejected" as you call it? I not only acknowledge it, I can give a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, which I already have previously.


Was that the 'they leaned over 600 feet through the air' "explanation" or 'they hit the footprint and then moved hundreds of feet' "explanation"? Or was it something else? Sorry, I just don't keep track of all the stupid things people have been posting.


And more importantly, there is nothing significant about your laymen interpretation of the surface of the debris pile after collapse. It carries no weight whatsoever, let alone prove anything.


Unfortunately being able to look at something and make simple observations is a requirement of the scientific method. I know you're desperately projecting your own delusion back onto me but you are basically saying you have to be qualified to look at a photograph. I don't care how delusional you think someone else is, some red flag should be going off in your head when you can't even trust your own eyes anymore. Like I said, I'm not a therapist so I'm at a loss here.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I could say the exact same things about some of the people within the truther movement. You defend and defend and name-call and make empty claims on a daily basis, yet when someone comes out with contradictory information, it is ignored. It's claimed "must be fake" or "they planted it!" or "doesn't matter, they still are liars and therefor we can't trust the official 'tale' at all."

In fact, I've found many of the OS supporters here to be nicer and far less inflammatory than most of the Truthers here.


This is the 9/11 RELIGION versus the 9/11 PSYCHOSIS.

ROFL

You don't consider talking about consensus and not using INTACT correctly inflammatory?

I am talking about physics. You are talking about emotional bull#.

I don't give a damn about Truthers. You just put people into groups and assume they think alike. I don't care who did 9/11 or why. You demonstrated on your own that you don't know what the word INTACT means.

Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement. It is totally absurd that everybody on all sides is not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. But I don't hear Richard Gage or Steven Jones or Judy Woods talking about that. NINE YEARS arguing about physics without having correct data. If it were not so pathetic it would be hilarious.

Let's see you build a model that can collapse completely while damaging its components in the process.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's not it. It's that what you're claiming the paper says, it doesn't.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where he says anywhere that he doesn't use 50-95% of the mass for the entire collapse in his model. The last time you tried to post a quote from the paper it said nothing resembling what you claimed, but maybe you want to take another look at that too.

So you are saying that without any mass accumulating at all, he can make the collapse progress all the way to the ground in his model. I guess that translates into magic in the real world. I know who really doesn't understand Bazant's paper, or physics in general, and it's not me.


Yes that is what he is saying. Which is very logical, if the first floor fails when mass x falls on it with speed y, then every sequential floor will also fail when mass x falls on it with speed >=y.


Was that the 'they leaned over 600 feet through the air' "explanation" or 'they hit the footprint and then moved hundreds of feet' "explanation"? Or was it something else? Sorry, I just don't keep track of all the stupid things people have been posting.


I know it is all a bit hard for your brain to process. My explanation is that they were pushed out by the falling debris and top section in the center. Tension buildup occurred at the joints, making them snap loose.

I know, it all sounds totally delusional. So whats your explanation?


Unfortunately being able to look at something and make simple observations is a requirement of the scientific method. I know you're desperately projecting your own delusion back onto me but you are basically saying you have to be qualified to look at a photograph. I don't care how delusional you think someone else is, some red flag should be going off in your head when you can't even trust your own eyes anymore. Like I said, I'm not a therapist so I'm at a loss here.


What does the scientific method have to do with your laymen guesstimates? Do you think you are doing science here? Anyway, good for you that you think you are qualified to determine the distribution of debris from photographs of the surface of the pile. It is just that I do not acknowledge you as an authority, and do not take your guesstimates serious. At least not as long as you do not share your methods, other then look and guess.
edit on 15-3-2011 by -PLB- because: fix quotes



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


There's a reason I'm not responding to your replies. You can't get your obsessive compulsion off of the use of the word intact, and you keep on being extremely disrespectful.

I refuse to respond to you until you respond to me with decorum.

Also, for the record, the English Lexicon is a highly flexible thing. A word's meaning can and often does get used in different ways. I understand that I should have not used intact, and instead it would have been more proper to say that it "remained standing" or that it "left part of the core un-destroyed (intact)," but I do not feel that it has the merit to distract you for nearly your entire post. Honestly, get over it and focus on the actual point of our argument.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join