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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 41
34
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, you have not proved anything. You throw around the name Newton and that the WTC did not fit the laws of physics for collapsing the way it did.

I asked you to watch the video to give you a visual understanding of what I am trying to explain. I told you, there was a failure to continue to disperse the load based on fires and the removal of inner columns. A building is designed to work to sustain the load as you have explained, but if you remove what was created to do that, it fails. Just like a CD. That is what they do. In this case, it was planes that severed the columns.


I understand the physics you bring up, the laws of Newton. Maybe a new approach is needed.

Momentum is not just the motion, but the power within the object that is moving. In other words, the amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. IN this case, the WTC is the frame of reference.

According to his second law, the rate of change of the momentum of a particle is proportional to the resultant force acting on the particle and is in the direction of that force. This I believe would address the mass that was suddenly pulled by gravity because nothing was holding the upper floors. So, it goes down.

So then according to The law of conservation of linear momentum, if no external force acts upon it to stop.

Now, his third law states, the mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This law is in effect when a building is complete, with no damage, as it is supporting itself. Now, if force of gravity is applied to the upper floors that were not supported after the initiating failure, then the building will fall. Did you ever play Jenga?

Basically, if have to apply all of Newtons laws and not just the one you think fits your concept of what happened on 9/11.

The sagging trusses are not a hypothesis, but what occurred. Nothing melted. The building was designed to be connected to the out structure of the tower. When that failed to occur, the initiation of the collapse began. Suddenly, not only was it supporting the upper floors without key inner columns, but it was not connected to the outer column.

Eventually, the FORCE of gravity with tip or pull that mass over and it will fall in the path of least resistance. This is where you are not following the 3 laws of Newtons physics.

Support does not just start at the bottom of the building. That is called a foundation. The support is provided by the tube structure you claim to know so much about.
Also, trusses would not have failed in the 75 fire as it was contained to a closet with electrical equipment and affected a few floors. Not hot enough to weaken any structure. There was water damage on 2 floors. Too compare that to the attacks on 9/11 is not possible. However, this did initiate the WTC to install sprinklers throughout the building. Now, here is another quote from the NY Times you failed to post.




“The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.... Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said.
Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.”


Now, that sounds more realistic and it is from the same guy you posted.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


It should not matter who believes in what, but who wants to research and make a decision for themselves. I respect everyones opinion but it is hard to argue with fact in some cases.




posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you still not understand the problem with modeling?


So where is your self supporting model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE if you know so much about it?

Of course if the model is IMPOSSIBLE then maybe the collapse of the towers due to airliners was also IMPOSSIBLE and all you can do is try to talk people into BELIEVING BULLSH#.

The 9/11 RELIGION

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

Physicists that have not been demanding to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers will never live this down.

psik

PS - The Square -cube Law is a problem making small models involving destruction. That is why I use paper and deliberately made it as weak as possible. IT STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE!

dinosaurtheory.com...
.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



PS - The Square -cube Law is a problem making small models involving destruction. That is why I use paper and deliberately made it as weak as possible. IT STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE!

Well, as weak as possible except for the big broomhandle in the middle. All you proved was that when you drop little washers and paper loops on each other they are not heavy enough to make a broomhandle stuck in the ground keel over. Congratulations!



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



PS - The Square -cube Law is a problem making small models involving destruction. That is why I use paper and deliberately made it as weak as possible. IT STILL DID NOT COLLAPSE!

Well, as weak as possible except for the big broomhandle in the middle. All you proved was that when you drop little washers and paper loops on each other they are not heavy enough to make a broomhandle stuck in the ground keel over. Congratulations!


Yeah, you need to keep distracting from what is relevant. The dowel does not move and there is nothing falling on it.

The paper loops perform the function of the COLUMNS in the WTC towers. They support the STATIC LOAD. They do get crushed under the DYNAMIC LOAD but they progressively slow it down. So why didn't that happen in the WTC?

Was something blowing out the columns from below? How could the buildings come down so FAST?

So keep talking about the dowel. Advertise that you can only provide MISDIRECTION.


Of course anyone can duplicate the model for themselves. Physics does not give a damn about TALK!

www.youtube.com...

psik
edit on 16-4-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The paper loops perform the function of the COLUMNS in the WTC towers. They support the STATIC LOAD. They do get crushed under the DYNAMIC LOAD but they progressively slow it down. So why didn't that happen in the WTC?


Because your model is nonsense. And there you go with the "crushing" again. The columns were not "crushed". They were deformed, bent and the connections failed but they were not crushed. The building collapsed, it was not pulverized. Please take your model to some "engineering school" and tell them that the loops of copier paper represent the exterior panel column system of the world trade and explained to them that since dropping washers on them didn't make them collapse then there must have been explosives planted in the world trade center.

Besides, why are you bothering with these broomhandle, washer and construction paper "models"? After all this time you could have built a scaled mock up of at least two or three levels of the building by now. Also, you've been crying and crying about not having any information about the distributions of concrete and steel on each level yet you swear your science fair exhibit is an exact theoretical model of the structure of the world trade center, how so?



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No, you have not proved anything. You throw around the name Newton and that the WTC did not fit the laws of physics for collapsing the way it did.


I don't have to prove anything actually. It's up to you to prove the OS is correct.

It didn't fit the laws of physics for collapsing the way it did.


I asked you to watch the video to give you a visual understanding of what I am trying to explain.


But you haven't explained anything, except to tell me what I already know, NIST only covered the collapse initiation.

You have not explained how the collapses happened using Newtons laws of motion.

If there is a point to that vid then make it. I will debate you on it, but I'm done critiquing vids because you are too lazy to type.


I told you, there was a failure to continue to disperse the load based on fires and the removal of inner columns.


And yet you have provided no evidence to support this claim. I already know the official story, why do you think keep repeating it will make any difference?


A building is designed to work to sustain the load as you have explained, but if you remove what was created to do that, it fails. Just like a CD. That is what they do. In this case, it was planes that severed the columns.


What was removed? You have no evidence anything was removed. This is what they do? What kind of stupid claim is that? Where is your physics? I want facts not your opinion. Who are you to say this is 'what they do'?
It's not what they do, or building would collapse from fire all the time.

If trusses failed, there is no reason it would effect the core or other floors. I have shown this many time using Newtons laws of motion. Your failure to understand is not my fault.


I understand the physics you bring up, the laws of Newton. Maybe a new approach is needed.


Obviously you don't. No new approach is needed. I find it amazing how you keep dismissing Newton LAWS, excepted laws of physics that don't change because it's the WTC.


Momentum is not just the motion, but the power within the object that is moving. In other words, the amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. IN this case, the WTC is the frame of reference.


An object only has 'power within it' from its motion, KE comes from it's momentum. Energy is not some magic power that makes things ignore the laws of physics. KE is not 'power', it is a measurement of work done, or work required for something to move. KE is not a physical force, it is directly proportional to the mass and velocity of the object. If that object hits something and is stopped it no longer has KE.

No matter how fast something is moving the laws of motion apply, EVERY TIME.

If two objects collide of different mass, and velocity, the force on each object is still the same, equal, that is a physics law. Velocity increases mass, but it also increases the forces on impact on both objects.
This is why the larger mass always wins.


According to his second law, the rate of change of the momentum of a particle is proportional to the resultant force acting on the particle and is in the direction of that force. This I believe would address the mass that was suddenly pulled by gravity because nothing was holding the upper floors. So, it goes down.


Yes it goes down and impacts the lower floors, then Newtons 3rd law comes into play.


So then according to The law of conservation of linear momentum, if no external force acts upon it to stop.


But the WTC did have an external force act on it to stop it, the floor that was impacted by the dropping floor.


Now, his third law states, the mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This law is in effect when a building is complete, with no damage, as it is supporting itself. Now, if force of gravity is applied to the upper floors that were not supported after the initiating failure, then the building will fall. Did you ever play Jenga?


Nonsense. The 3rd law is equal opposite reactions, but not as you explain it. It is the laws of motion, not 'complete undamaged buildings'. It is the law that addresses objects moving and colliding. The WTC floors moved and collided, according to you.

Tell me what experiences the most force, a bug hitting a windshield, or the windshield?


Basically, if have to apply all of Newtons laws and not just the one you think fits your concept of what happened on 9/11.


I do genius. The 3rd law is the most relevant to impacting floors.


The sagging trusses are not a hypothesis, but what occurred.


I disagree, there is no evidence imo of this happening. You can not test this in a lab and get the same results.


Nothing melted.


Strawman, I never claimed anything melted, or had to.


The building was designed to be connected to the out structure of the tower. When that failed to occur, the initiation of the collapse began. Suddenly, not only was it supporting the upper floors without key inner columns, but it was not connected to the outer column.


This is an uneducated opinion, I know better. There is no evidence any core columns were compromised.

But this is again where you fail to account for the laws of motion. There were still complete undamaged structure bellow the fires, that would have slowed the collapse, and eventually resisted it. Not enough dropping floors, the dropping floors could not have stayed whole while crashing through floors of the equal mass, and then destroy themselves in the end.

The top could not have dropped as one complete block from fire.

This is the pancake/progressive collapse that NIST rejected. Because it is not possible.


Eventually, the FORCE of gravity with tip or pull that mass over and it will fall in the path of least resistance. This is where you are not following the 3 laws of Newtons physics.


Oh 'force' in caps must make it true. The path of least resistance is through the undamaged building? OK.

This is where you are misunderstanding Newtons laws. Remember equal opposite reaction? The top can not stay in one piece and crush equal, or more mass, and not be crushed themselves. The top is not going to stay in one piece and crash through other floors. We can see in the vids this is not what happened. We can see the ejected mass, mass needed to do your crushing. We can see post collapse there is not enough mass in the footprints to account for pancaking floors.


Support does not just start at the bottom of the building. That is called a foundation. The support is provided by the tube structure you claim to know so much about.


I thought according to you the support was from the floors, and when the trusses failed the 'tube' could not support itself? If the tube is the support, which is correct, then the failing trusses should have had no effect on the 'tube'.

By 'tube' I assume you mean the cantilever core structure?


Also, trusses would not have failed in the 75 fire as it was contained to a closet with electrical equipment and affected a few floors. Not hot enough to weaken any structure. There was water damage on 2 floors. Too compare that to the attacks on 9/11 is not possible. However, this did initiate the WTC to install sprinklers throughout the building. Now, here is another quote from the NY Times you failed to post.


It effected 10 floors, that is more than WTC 1 on 911. The fire caused $2,000,000 damage, that is more than water damage.

Sprinklers would have made no difference, WTC 2 was on fire for less than an hour, not long enough to cause failure of a steel structure.

The trusses were still above the fire that burned like a blow torch.



Now, that sounds more realistic and it is from the same guy you posted.


More realistic than what? You are not debunking anything here.


edit on 4/16/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The paper loops perform the function of the COLUMNS in the WTC towers. They support the STATIC LOAD. They do get crushed under the DYNAMIC LOAD but they progressively slow it down. So why didn't that happen in the WTC?


Because your model is nonsense. And there you go with the "crushing" again. The columns were not "crushed". They were deformed, bent and the connections failed but they were not crushed. The building collapsed, it was not pulverized. Please take your model to some "engineering school" and tell them that the loops of copier paper represent the exterior panel column system of the world trade and explained to them that since dropping washers on them didn't make them collapse then there must have been explosives planted in the world trade center.

Besides, why are you bothering with these broomhandle, washer and construction paper "models"? After all this time you could have built a scaled mock up of at least two or three levels of the building by now. Also, you've been crying and crying about not having any information about the distributions of concrete and steel on each level yet you swear your science fair exhibit is an exact theoretical model of the structure of the world trade center, how so?


Considering that our schools do not demand to know and publish the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers it appears they have a problem with distributing information.

In fact you cannot find the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level for any skyscraper in the world. Very curious that. And the Empire State Building was designed without electronic computers and will be 80 years old this year. So our engineering schools are obviously failing to solve a rather simple problem.

Building a scaled mock up of three levels is TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

What matters in this issue is what happens when multiple levels impact each other. But that brings up the issues of how much mass and how strong the supports were in relation to that mass. That is why my paper loops are as weak as possible. The mass falling from above must overcome the dynamic load capacity. But that requires energy so it slows down.

The engineering schools have spent NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not settling this. So now they must participate in the confusion by at least remaining silent. How can they admit that a $30 model which grade school kids could build is actually relevant to something they have failed to resolve for so long?

The model even demonstrates that Bazant is talking nonsense in relation to Newton's 3rd Law. The bottom of my falling mass gets crushed and Ryan Mackey's conceptual model with a solid falling block would not show that.

psik



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What matters in this issue is what happens when multiple levels impact each other. But that brings up the issues of how much mass and how strong the supports were in relation to that mass. That is why my paper loops are as weak as possible. The mass falling from above must overcome the dynamic load capacity. But that requires energy so it slows down.

Ok, I'll play. You state that your loops were as "weak as possible". Prove it. How many design variations did you go through before you arrived at the perfect minimum needed to support your structures? How many different types of paper did you try? Did you perforate the loops until they failed? Did you try corrugation of lighter materials? Did you increase the washer sizes until you achieved failure? I doubt it. You simply put together a "model" that would react the way you wanted it to. Weak is a relative term.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I am not debunking anything because I do not have too. The problem is that you are only observing and understanding one of Newtons laws and applying them because it fits your idea. You don't understand and that is ok. It happens everyday. People perceive something to be true if they believe it, even if there is no evidence. Delusions. Narcissism...that's cool.

Again, you do not answer any of the questions I pose nor attempt to provide evidence that the WTC should have stood the way they did. Same old arguments and no answers...sad for you.

Honestly, at this point, you should know that you cannot pick an choose or you will be called on it. It is sad...very sad.

Just like your perception of the fire in 75. I gave a reference to the same person you used to prove your point and it showed a few floors of water damage. If you try to compare that to 9/11 you are incorrect. Severely incorrect and it is not something that is needed to explain. Common sense should point this out.
edit on 16-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Then explain, as I did how it fits, that it does not fit the laws of physics? Take all 3 three laws of Newton, as you have used, and show me how they can explain that the WTC should not have fallen.

I have asked this numerous times now. You don't want to and I understand but I wish you would try.

Please,tell me as to how you, ANOK, believe the WTC came down and why they did that day. Treat me as someone you just met. I would like to know your thoughts fully if we are to continue. A debate would be nice....



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What matters in this issue is what happens when multiple levels impact each other. But that brings up the issues of how much mass and how strong the supports were in relation to that mass. That is why my paper loops are as weak as possible. The mass falling from above must overcome the dynamic load capacity. But that requires energy so it slows down.

Ok, I'll play. You state that your loops were as "weak as possible". Prove it. How many design variations did you go through before you arrived at the perfect minimum needed to support your structures? How many different types of paper did you try? Did you perforate the loops until they failed? Did you try corrugation of lighter materials? Did you increase the washer sizes until you achieved failure? I doubt it. You simply put together a "model" that would react the way you wanted it to. Weak is a relative term.


Prove it yourself. BUILD THE MODEL!

Perforation did not work. Holes only caused the paper to get a little weaker with more holes until it suddenly became much weaker and would hold almost nothing. All of the washers weigh 3.5 pounds so that is how strong the bottom loop must be. One man reported duplicating the model but used tracing paper near the top. I haven't seen tracing paper in years. But he still reported the same net result.

The PROOF is in people trying the experiment themselves, not in a lot of TALK. I just respond to detractors pretending to know physics.

When do the engineering schools even say how many feet of steel there were in the horizontal beams in the core at each level? With 47 columns at 12 feet per column that is only 564. There had to be more than twice that in horizontal steel. So what was the total weight at every level? Great science from the nation that put men on the Moon.

psik
edit on 16-4-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Perforation did not work. Holes only caused the paper to get a little weaker with more holes until it suddenly became much weaker and would hold almost nothing.

Now wait, I thought you said that the model was "as weak as possible"? Now you're telling me you had a weaker model but decided not to use it - which is it, was it "as weak as possible" or "almost as weak as I could get it without doing a lot of more work and risk a finding that did not support my argument"?

Not that it matters, the whole thing is irrelevant because your "model" has nothing to do with what was observed on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Perforation did not work. Holes only caused the paper to get a little weaker with more holes until it suddenly became much weaker and would hold almost nothing.

Now wait, I thought you said that the model was "as weak as possible"? Now you're telling me you had a weaker model but decided not to use it - which is it, was it "as weak as possible" or "almost as weak as I could get it without doing a lot of more work and risk a finding that did not support my argument"?

Not that it matters, the whole thing is irrelevant because your "model" has nothing to do with what was observed on 9/11.


Because what was observed on 9/11 was not a gravitational collapse. That is the point of the model demonstration. What happened on 9/11 could not have been caused by what is claimed.

As weak as possible and STILL HOLD ITSELF UP. If the paper loops could not hold all of the washers up under the STATIC LOAD then it is pointless. The model is easy to duplicate. There is nothing to stop you from trying to make it weaker and still hold itself up. I did two drops in the video and more than 50% was still standing so making it a tiny bit weaker would not matter. You are just looking for trivia to nitpick.

Where is your model that can completely collapse? Which of our engineering schools has built one?

Which of our engineering schools has talked about building one?

psik



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81THE WTC WERE BUILD TO WITHSTAND ANY IMPACT OR FIRE


They did withstand the impacts. Hence, they didn't collapse immediately.

In the 1970's, we had no way to model fire and things of that nature. FEA were not available like we have today.

Unless you think you have a source that proves it?


Originally posted by Ben81
INNACEPTABLE


I don't understand this word.....



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So where is your self supporting model that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE if you know so much about it?


I will take that as a no, you still do not understand the problem with scale modeling.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Of course if the model is IMPOSSIBLE then maybe the collapse of the towers due to airliners was also IMPOSSIBLE and all you can do is try to talk people into BELIEVING BULLSH#.


Affirmed. You have no idea the problems with scale modeling.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I did two drops in the video and more than 50% was still standing so making it a tiny bit weaker would not matter. You are just looking for trivia to nitpick.


Actually, and again, it was, unlike the World Trade Center towers, all still standing because there was a broomhandle stopping it from collapsing!! All you have managed to prove was what happens when you put some paper loops an washers together on a broomhandle and drop them. Which is perfect if your goal is to show what happens to paper loops and washers on a broomhandle. As to its relation to events on 9/11, well any engineering student will tell you it's perfectly irrelevant because it attempts to represent a complex structure like the world trade center with simple monolithic elements like paper loops and washers.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Ben81THE WTC WERE BUILD TO WITHSTAND ANY IMPACT OR FIRE


They did withstand the impacts. Hence, they didn't collapse immediately.

In the 1970's, we had no way to model fire and things of that nature. FEA were not available like we have today.


So couldn't the supposed collapse be simulated with the computing power we have now? But wouldn't that require knowing the correct amount of steel and concrete on every level? So why don't any official sources provide that information now.?

Why bother modeling the fire?

Just simulate the north tower and completely remove 5 stories below the top 15 stories. That would leave a 60 foot gap and 90 intact stories below. It should take a little less than 2 seconds for the 15 stories to fall and they would impact at 44 mph. If the building does not completely collapse in that simulation then it should not have happened on 9/11.

So why haven't any of our engineering schools been able to come up with that in NINE YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Just simulate the north tower and completely remove 5 stories below the top 15 stories. That would leave a 60 foot gap and 90 intact stories below. It should take a little less than 2 seconds for the 15 stories to fall and they would impact at 44 mph. If the building does not completely collapse in that simulation then it should not have happened on 9/11.

So why haven't any of our engineering schools been able to come up with that in NINE YEARS?


Pretty much the same reason they don't experiment every day to see what the coefficient for thermal expansion of steel is going to be, they already now. You drop those 15 stories and the rest of the building is going to fold like a card table.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Just simulate the north tower and completely remove 5 stories below the top 15 stories. That would leave a 60 foot gap and 90 intact stories below. It should take a little less than 2 seconds for the 15 stories to fall and they would impact at 44 mph. If the building does not completely collapse in that simulation then it should not have happened on 9/11.

So why haven't any of our engineering schools been able to come up with that in NINE YEARS?


Pretty much the same reason they don't experiment every day to see what the coefficient for thermal expansion of steel is going to be, they already now. You drop those 15 stories and the rest of the building is going to fold like a card table.


YEAH RIGHT!

If it doesn't they end up with NINE YEARS of egg all over their faces and thousands of people were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over this crap.

But then they can't even do it accurately if they can't even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. But that can't be found on any skyscraper. The simple needs to be left mysterious. The building had to get stronger and heavier going down. So the falling portion got weaker and lighter going up. Even if it could destroy lower levels at a 3 to 1 ratio that would still leave 45 stories standing. This entire business is ridiculous. The engineering schools need to keep quite about this.

psik




top topics



 
34
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join