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.

 

What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Explain how it was staged.....

Gas leaks are a common call for fire departments, most are harmless - someone thinks smells "gas" and calls
FD, We show up in big red trucks, check the area with gas meters (which is why we carry them on our
trucks) , call the local utility if find anything to deal with leak

I suppose all the people in the shot are "actors" as the other nut jobs on LETS ROLL claim

Barralion Chief Joseph Pffeifer (one in white shirt with meter) - his younger brother Kevin was killed at in North
Tower with his crew from Engine 33. I suppose he was an "actor" too




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The wind is a SHEER FORCE on a skyscraper just like an airliner would be.


No, it most certainly is not.

Sheer force is spread over a very large area. Wind does not focus all of it's energy on a small portion of the building like an airplane crash would.


The buildings were built to withstand multiple impacts of the largest jets of the age, comparable in size to the cartoons we saw on TV. The wind sheer made those towers gigantic sails which never even swayed in heavy winds. Those towers were mad-strong.

Besides, other than provably forged video, there is no evidence to support the existence of jets.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The wind is a SHEER FORCE on a skyscraper just like an airliner would be.


No, it most certainly is not.

Sheer force is spread over a very large area. Wind does not focus all of it's energy on a small portion of the building like an airplane crash would.


The buildings were built to withstand multiple impacts of the largest jets of the age, comparable in size to the cartoons we saw on TV. The wind sheer made those towers gigantic sails which never even swayed in heavy winds. Those towers were mad-strong.


"mad-strong"

More scientifically precise terminology.

How do you test if a skyscraper is built to withstand airliner impacts?

psik



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   


Explain how it was staged.....


What, in a couple sentences? Leslie Raphael's work rivals War and Peace, and I couldn't possibly provide a summary which would break through your presumptions. He explains it thoroughly; if you are serious about wanting to know how it was staged, it is recommended to have the Naudet DVD on hand as a reference while you read it.



Gas leaks are a common call for fire departments, most are harmless - someone thinks smells "gas" and calls FD, We show up in big red trucks, check the area with gas meters (which is why we carry them on our trucks) , call the local utility if find anything to deal with leak


So you think it would have been better to use a less believable pretext? Good plan. What did they accomplish with that gas leak anyway? They closed an intersection which would have otherwise prevented a cameraman from being able to catch that first hit, making it a fortuitous gas leak indeed.



I suppose all the people in the shot are "actors" as the other nut jobs on LETS ROLL claim


Actors, agents or Wise Guys. What's the difference? You're not romantically attached to the notion that the FDNY is free from corruption, are you? It's New York we're talking about...Wise Guys run the place, or am I a "nut job" for noticing that?



Barralion Chief Joseph Pffeifer (one in white shirt with meter) - his younger brother Kevin was killed at in North Tower with his crew from Engine 33. I suppose he was an "actor" too


Not a very good one, and a worse firefighter, not to mention an accessory to murder, terrorism and treason, to name just a few.



edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   


"mad-strong" More scientifically precise terminology. How do you test if a skyscraper is built to withstand airliner impacts? psik


I am not an engineer, but the ones who built the towers claim they could withstand direct hits from multiple 707s.

Remember the images from 911? Jet-shaped holes! My god, they're laughing at us, man!

Aluminum doesn't trump structural steel...buildings aren't made out of aluminum for the same reason bullets aren't made out of the stuff.

Look at the wing, from the engine to the tip.


en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the size of these babies:


letsrollforums.com...

Aluminum foil simply cannot slice a cartoon cutout of a plane through structural steel wrapped in concrete, not in the real world anyway. And yet we all saw it on TV.




edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Mate I don't believe the OS fairytale but that pic is of the central core..
Not the outside facade..
The plane did NOT make a neat cut out in THAT steel...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Mate I don't believe the OS fairytale but that pic is of the central core..
Not the outside facade..
The plane did NOT make a neat cut out in THAT steel...


I thought the same at first, but those are the exterior columns.

Below is a link to the some images from the Wisconsin Historical Society. I didn't want to post the photos, because they have scary copyright warnings, so just go to the site and look for "View all WTC Construction Images" towards the bottom of the home page. Then, look for the photos towards the lower right, and you'll see the same columns, and compare the highlighted area below to the images they show. No doubt about it, those are the exterior columns. You're right about the plane not cutting through THAT steel though...don't need to get any more scientifically technical than that.

www.wisconsinhistory.org...




edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: corrected link

edit on 5-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: typo



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I think what you are seeing is the lower sections of the WTC, but correct about the exterior columns.

www.wisconsinhistory.org...

See here.

Same type construction. However, the exterior columns that were higher than the lobby, actually were spaced much closer together.

Like this.


Notice that they also have a very thick horizontal plate? You don't see that in your image. Yes, while you appear to be correct that they are exterior, I don't believe that they are from higher than the ground-floor lobbies.

Here is another picture with the candlesticks intact.
www.wisconsinhistory.org...

Notice the same steel framing that you show, is below the candlesticks.

Conclusion: Exterior columns, but much much lower in the building.

ETA: None of the columns were wrapped in concrete.

edit on 5-3-2011 by FDNY343 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Thanks.

Agreed, they're smaller than the lobby steel; none the less, a jet wing tip can't cut it like a hot knife through butter. In the real world, the jet would be shredded like a giant lettuce slicer with hundreds of identifiable, serial numbered aircraft parts being spread over Manhattan. Some parts like the landing gear and the titanium engines may have contained enough momentum, mass and density of material to punch through, but nothing but explosives can explain a plane-shaped hole.

The images of the lobby steel may be bigger than the steel where the "impact" occurred, but the story gets even more ridiculous when you consider the alleged jet strike took place dozens of floors above the lobby, and yet the lobby was decimated as well. Most of the concrete was indeed on the lower floors, yet even that was reduced to dust:

www.flickr.com...#/photos/hiro_oshima/127764908/lightbox/

Here is a shot showing the thickness of those outer columns...they can be compared to the thickness of the armor of a tank. No matter how fast an aluminum wing tip is traveling, it won't cut structural steel like that. The density of the material makes the airplane shaped hole an impossibility in the real world.

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Thanks.
Agreed, they're smaller than the lobby steel; none the less, a jet wing tip can't cut it like a hot knife through butter.


Accelerate that wind to over 733 FPS, and I guarantee it can.


Originally posted by Yankee451

911research.wtc7.net...



I've seen these pictures. Is there one you want me to specifically look at?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   


Accelerate that wind to over 733 FPS, and I guarantee it can.


Unless Newton's second law is wrong, I guarantee it cannot. If you really believe that, you might want to consider investing in aluminum bullets and tank shells.

Reverse the equation...what would happen to that wingtip if the building or even one segment of an exterior column was traveling at 733 FPS and hit the stationary plane?

The only tangible evidence of jets are those that were broadcast on TV and allegedly private photos and videos. All it takes is to look at the videos of the impacts to see there is no "equal and opposite" reaction at impact...the pictures of the jets didn't even slow down as they sliced through the structural steel and blew out the other side...no crumpling like an accordion, nothing bouncing off the face of it...even the wing tips and tail fins sliced into that building...impossible, therefore they are not real.



I've seen these pictures. Is there one you want me to specifically look at?


Those that show the "tridents" combining to one column demonstrate the thickness of the steel.

Conclusion: If the OP is looking for 2-3 good scientific starting points, I recommend starting with Newton.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Unless Newton's second law is wrong, I guarantee it cannot. If you really believe that, you might want to consider investing in aluminum bullets and tank shells.


Water can cut steel if you accelerate it to a fast enough velocity. Are you saying that Newton's second law doesn't apply? Water is MUCH softer than aluminum, and yet, it can cut steel.


Originally posted by Yankee451

Reverse the equation...what would happen to that wingtip if the building or even one segment of an exterior column was traveling at 733 FPS and hit the stationary plane?

The only tangible evidence of jets are those that were broadcast on TV and allegedly private photos and videos. All it takes is to look at the videos of the impacts to see there is no "equal and opposite" reaction at impact...the pictures of the jets didn't even slow down as they sliced through the structural steel and blew out the other side...no crumpling like an accordion, nothing bouncing off the face of it...even the wing tips and tail fins sliced into that building...impossible, therefore they are not real.


You cannot SEE an "equal and opposite reaction" because it is occuring INSIDE the building due to the velocity. I calculated that the entire plane entered the building in about 2/10th of 1 second at that speeds. Can any video camera detect any type of deceleration or any other measurable difference in 6 frames? Not likely. In fact, I have pointed this out to Jim Fetzer NUMEROUS times.

Please show your math showing that it would be impossible. Remember, the jet has a cumulative KE of over a BILLION joules.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Those that show the "tridents" combining to one column demonstrate the thickness of the steel.


At the BASE of the tower, correct. I am sure you've been told this numerous times but the only thing that had to fail for the plane to enter the WTC, is the connections. Which, just FYI, is the WEAKEST point of the structure.



Originally posted by Yankee451

Conclusion: If the OP is looking for 2-3 good scientific starting points, I recommend starting with Newton.


Not that it would be applied correctly, but good luck.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The steel exterior columns were 1/4 in thick. The beams were held togather by spandrel plates which were
bolted and welded to the columns.

The plane did not so much cut the columns as to snap the welds and bolts connecting them together like a
a picket fence. The broken columns were then pushed out of the way


As the diagram and photograph illustrate, the perimeter wall structures were assembled from pre-fabricated units consisting of 3 column sections and 3 spandrel plate sections welded together. Adjacent units were bolted together: column sections were bolted to adjacent columns above and below, and spandrel plate sections were mated with adjacent sections on either side with numerous


911research.wtc7.net...

Here is section of exterior wall lying in street after being dislofged from the building






posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Water can cut steel if you accelerate it to a fast enough velocity. Are you saying that Newton's second law doesn't apply? Water is MUCH softer than aluminum, and yet, it can cut steel.


There is more to how that works than just speed, you need to create pressure in a very small area. You could make ANYTHING cut through steel if you can create enough pressure with it and concentrate it in a small area.


The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent.

science.howstuffworks.com...


You cannot SEE an "equal and opposite reaction" because it is occuring INSIDE the building due to the velocity.


OSers can not seem to grasp the principle of Newtons third law. The forces acting on the pentagon and the plane are equal regardless of the velocity of the plane. When the velocity is increased the forces on both objects is increased, equally.


Please show your math showing that it would be impossible. Remember, the jet has a cumulative KE of over a BILLION joules.


Which means any object it hits also gives back an equal force of a 'BILLION joules'.


Not that it would be applied correctly, but good luck.


Well obviously not by you. If you could apply Newtons laws of motion correctly you would also be asking where the plane went.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by zimishey
yes. I am sure they wont bother with controlled demolition from now on. They will just fly planes into buildings lol
MUCH more effective. You even get free ones coming down within the vicinity. Just set some floors on fire and capoooosh... Miraculous ahhhhhhhhhh


Yeah, except for all the variables that must be accurately accounted for.

You know, like material, fire progression, ventilation, wind direction, speed, time of burn, window breakage(which causes more ventilation) etc. etc. etc.


According to you, how could realistic variations in any of those things have caused the WTC Towers to remain standing?

Those were 2 of the most robust buildings on Earth. If flying 1 plane into each one could result in such total destruction, virtually the same exact thing twice in a row, then that sounds like a pretty consistent method to me.


PS You might be interested in PE Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's Associated Press article regarding the FEMA report and the WTC investigation. Google should still return it even though it was quickly buried and never followed up when the article came out. He tried for years to recreate FEMA's modeling of the collapses only to prove to himself that not only the WTC towers, but most NYC skyscrapers can survive planes and fire according to his modeling, and as soon as he was satisfied of this he went to the AP accusing FEMA and the ASCE of criminal cover-up. He assumed they were trying to protect some interest of the original architects or engineers in covering up some design flaw his models did not take into account, but nonetheless using their own data, one of their own engineers from the BPAT team debunked them.
edit on 6-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Which means any object it hits also gives back an equal force of a 'BILLION joules'


And unless both objects are constructed exactly the same way, the reaction will be expressed differently for "both" objects.

Also, please note that simply labeling the Pentagon as "an object" and the plane as "an object" does not make the obsservation correct. Both were very complex constructions wherein millions if not billions of individual actions-reactions were taking place.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is more to how that works than just speed, you need to create pressure in a very small area. You could make ANYTHING cut through steel if you can create enough pressure with it and concentrate it in a small area.


The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent.

science.howstuffworks.com...


Yep. Just like the plane did. Lots of energy, concentrated in a central area.

Also, this is pretty cool.
www.youtube.com...

I am sure you've seen it before.



Originally posted by ANOK
OSers can not seem to grasp the principle of Newtons third law. The forces acting on the pentagon and the plane are equal regardless of the velocity of the plane. When the velocity is increased the forces on both objects is increased, equally.


Correct.



Originally posted by ANOK
Which means any object it hits also gives back an equal force of a 'BILLION joules'.


Hence why the plane did not bounce off, and did not crumple into a bunch of tiny bits as Jim et al. believe it should have. The plane is shredded. Done. Finished. However, the resistance is not enough to make the plane come to a dead stop. The plane continues to move forward.


Originally posted by ANOK
Well obviously not by you. If you could apply Newtons laws of motion correctly you would also be asking where the plane went.


Inside the building. I understand Newton's laws of motion quite well. Please show your math showing that the outer columns should have remained intact.

I'll wait.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
According to you, how could realistic variations in any of those things have caused the WTC Towers to remain standing?

Those were 2 of the most robust buildings on Earth. If flying 1 plane into each one could result in such total destruction, virtually the same exact thing twice in a row, then that sounds like a pretty consistent method to me.


My point was that to be accurate as to where it is going to fall, and when it will happen, and what portion will fail first, there are too many variables.

Notice that the two towers fell after different burn times? Notice that the buildings displayed different actions immediately before collapse? This is exactly what I am talking about.



Originally posted by bsbray11

PS You might be interested in PE Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's Associated Press article regarding the FEMA report and the WTC investigation. Google should still return it even though it was quickly buried and never followed up when the article came out. He tried for years to recreate FEMA's modeling of the collapses only to prove to himself that not only the WTC towers, but most NYC skyscrapers can survive planes and fire according to his modeling, and as soon as he was satisfied of this he went to the AP accusing FEMA and the ASCE of criminal cover-up. He assumed they were trying to protect some interest of the original architects or engineers in covering up some design flaw his models did not take into account, but nonetheless using their own data, one of their own engineers from the BPAT team debunked them.
edit on 6-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


I have found nothing of the sort. You really shouldn't be trying to use Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, because he doesn't believe a damn thing you claim he believes. Since this was in 2002, well BEFORE the NIST results were published.

You should read this here.

thewebfairy.com...

And here.

www.astaneh.net...#

He doesn't believe what you say he believes. Maybe you can point to an accurate location of the claims that you attribute to him? I haven't been able to find it.

But, it's your claim, so you should back it up.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451


"mad-strong" More scientifically precise terminology. How do you test if a skyscraper is built to withstand airliner impacts? psik


I am not an engineer, but the ones who built the towers claim they could withstand direct hits from multiple 707s.

Remember the images from 911? Jet-shaped holes! My god, they're laughing at us, man!

Aluminum doesn't trump structural steel...buildings aren't made out of aluminum for the same reason bullets aren't made out of the stuff.


I went to college for electrical engineering not structural engineering but my pledge father was an architect and there were FPE (Fire Protection Engineers) and Civil Engineers in the frat and we could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. Electrical engineers must take Newtonian Physics though. So there was lots of talk about it in the frat. The standard joke at IIT was, "architects take funny physics and funny math." Their "education" is more devoted to the aesthetics of buildings.

But why would anyone think seriously about skyscrapers before 9/11.

But that was about all I could think about for two weeks after the fact. It is the distribution of steel and other mass that is key to the issue as far as I am concerned. EVERY SKYSCRAPER MUST HOLD ITSELF UP. Gravity works pretty much the same way all over the planet. The CN Tower in Toronto demonstrates what the distribution must be like. Because it is a tower and not a building it does not have empty space in which to hide the distribution.

www.youtube.com...

But after NINE YEARS our so called physicists have a problem. If they say the distributions of steel and concrete are important now how do they explain not bringing up the issue in 2002? If they don't bring it up now how do they explain the physics they claim to understand? They are damned if the do and damned if they don't. So it appears they choose to say nothing and pretend the issue will go away with most people left believing planes could destroy the towers.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


So, all it takes is momentum in your world? Density of material doesn't enter into the equation, like the straw through the oak tree?

Get in at the ground floor! Aluminum bullet manufacturing!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join