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 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.
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.
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
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)
Originally posted by ANOK
Blah blah blah.....
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.
Originally posted by -PLB-
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.
Instead we will just see accusation of how everyone who rejects it is bad at physics.
Originally posted by Varemia
I could say the exact same things about some of the people within the truther movement.
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.
Originally posted by -PLB-
So now you are calling the exterior columns "nothing significant". For the rest, baseless rants.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by -PLB-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.