Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 48
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
I think it is telling also, especially as the BBC reported it had collapsed before it actually did. It is telling because a steel structure had never totally collapsed from fire alone [and damage from a collapsed skyscraper] and there were [firefighters reporting severe damage and clearing a collapse area].


Fixed that for you. For an engineer, you seem to be lacking in certain facets of common sense, no offense intended. I know that NIST concluded that the fire was what was essentially the leading factor to the collapse of the building, but they also concluded that the damage contributed to the collapse dynamics.

I'm not even going to respond to the other stuff. It's not possible to argue with people here on many issues. No matter how many times fallacies and misunderstandings get corrected, they keep worming their way back into every post. I guess I'm the only one here with a memory long-term enough to actually retain and evaluate all the evidence that I've encountered since I first got here.
edit on 4-5-2011 by Varemia because: fixed




posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
More Stupid Talk that you try to imply is meaningful.


Right, no info then. Just a hearty retort from our beloved psikey


Where was the center of mass of the top of the south tower.


Center of mass? I assume that you are talking about how the top of the south tower folded in on itself? Just, well, try something for me. Cut down a tree. You knock away at the support so that the weight on one side is not supported enough, it will make the upper weight of the tree shift to the area of least resistance, which then allows you to yell "Timber!"

Of course it's not the perfect analogy, so don't pick at it for details about the tree mass and the location of the cut. We're not talking models, we're talking about a basic physics principle related to gravity and the path of least resistance. It would make you look like an idiot to focus on my analogy rather than what it represents.


NO DATA!!!

Incompetent Physics.

psik


Oh wow, you have proven to me the truth, oh mighty psik. How can I ever thank you? If you hadn't screamed no data in all caps with not one, not two, but three exclamation points, well, I don't think I would have seen the light! Thank you so much for your calm, intellectual nature which allowed us to come to an agreement on 9/11. Your points were well thought out and deeply explained. (I hope I don't have to explain that this was sarcasm)
edit on 4-5-2011 by Varemia because: typo



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


including seeing a bulge in the southwest corner of the building among other things including a large gash in the side of the building. Plenty of visible signs the building was going to collapse.

The impressive looking gashes were giving no indications at all that collapse was imminent. The bulge sounds interesting though, I will look into that.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



For an engineer, you seem to be lacking in certain facets of common sense, no offense intended.




I know that NIST concluded that the fire was what was essentially the leading factor to the collapse of the building

Which is why I neglected to include the obvious debris damage, it was irrelevant to the point I was making. Only visible damage due to fire is relevant to predicting the collapse. Wasn't aware every word was going to be scrutinized that closely, I will try to be more careful.


I'm not even going to respond to the other stuff.

In over your head debating actual physics and numbers with me? Or you want to save face and avoid being shown up by someone who you claim lacks common sense? Come on, do it.


It's not possible to argue with people here on many issues.

I thought that would be easy for someone with a long-term memory as impressive as yours. Is it the short-term letting you down?


No matter how many times fallacies and misunderstandings get corrected, they keep worming their way back into every post. I guess I'm the only one here with a memory long-term enough to actually retain and evaluate all the evidence that I've encountered since I first got here.

I guess you are also the universal judge as to what is correct and what is not?

edit on 4-5-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
In over your head debating actual physics and numbers with me? Or you want to save face and avoid being shown up by someone who you claim lacks common sense? Come on, do it.


Honestly, I just don't have the motivation. Sometimes I have free-time. But right now, I'm working on my finals, and after over a year of dealing with this, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and leave ye as ye will. Not saying that Truthers are all right, but I'm just tired of it all. I'm gaining absolutely nothing from this, personally. If I try to delve into it using youtube, I get death threats and slandered on a daily basis.



I guess you are also the universal judge as to what is correct and what is not?


Absolutely not, but I always feel like my point of view is relevant and should be heard. If the opposing side does not speak up, then people will always think they are right and never second-guess themselves. You could say I might be here to help you guys get a more solid grip on your ideas. Heck, in the end, I could potentially be 'progressing' the Truth movement along by bringing to light its flaws and allowing you guys to correct them and come up with a more sensical explanation.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
More Stupid Talk that you try to imply is meaningful.


Right, no info then. Just a hearty retort from our beloved psikey


Where was the center of mass of the top of the south tower.


Center of mass? I assume that you are talking about how the top of the south tower folded in on itself? Just, well, try something for me. Cut down a tree. You knock away at the support so that the weight on one side is not supported enough, it will make the upper weight of the tree shift to the area of least resistance, which then allows you to yell "Timber!"


What is the ratio of the width to the height of a tree that can be chopped down as you describe?

The WTC was 208 feet wide. The height above the impact zone of the south tower was about 350 feet. A less than 2 to 1 ratio.

That is why the center of gravity matters. And the distribution of strength in the cross section of a tree is not like the WTC. The NIST said the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%.

More of you STUPID PHYSICS analogies.

The center of gravity of a tree would be far above the cut.

psik
edit on 4-5-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Honestly, I just don't have the motivation. Sometimes I have free-time. But right now, I'm working on my finals, and after over a year of dealing with this, I'm about ready to throw in the towel and leave ye as ye will. Not saying that Truthers are all right, but I'm just tired of it all. I'm gaining absolutely nothing from this, personally.

If the debating is not fun for you then it's really not worth it. It's very unlikely either side will change the minds of most people on ATS. Good luck with your finals.


If the opposing side does not speak up, then people will always think they are right and never second-guess themselves. You could say I might be here to help you guys get a more solid grip on your ideas. Heck, in the end, I could potentially be 'progressing' the Truth movement along by bringing to light its flaws and allowing you guys to correct them and come up with a more sensical explanation.

I agree, I'm a big believer that ATS needs competent posters to both sides of any debate, otherwise the crazies run wild and we end up with holograms, mini nukes and giant laser beams.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


LOL!

Maybe I should repeat what I said in that post which you obviously didn't finish reading:


Of course it's not the perfect analogy, so don't pick at it for details about the tree mass and the location of the cut. We're not talking models, we're talking about a basic physics principle related to gravity and the path of least resistance. It would make you look like an idiot to focus on my analogy rather than what it represents.


I said I wasn't describing a model of the tipping, just an analogy as to the idea involved in which a side with less resistance will cause an object to go in that direction. Stop thinking I'm describing a model and realize that it is an analogy.


Originally posted by Azp420
Good luck with your finals.


Thanks, some of them are a doozy.
edit on 4-5-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Of course it's not the perfect analogy, so don't pick at it for details about the tree mass and the location of the cut. We're not talking models, we're talking about a basic physics principle related to gravity and the path of least resistance. It would make you look like an idiot to focus on my analogy rather than what it represents.


Not perfect!?

It was so bad it was stupid.

What happened to the WTC was so simple it shouldn't need analogies, just correct data. So why isn't everyone demanding the tons of steel and concrete on every level? Is that the only way to keep people believing stupid trash?

psik



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
Of course it's not the perfect analogy, so don't pick at it for details about the tree mass and the location of the cut. We're not talking models, we're talking about a basic physics principle related to gravity and the path of least resistance. It would make you look like an idiot to focus on my analogy rather than what it represents.


Not perfect!?

It was so bad it was stupid.

What happened to the WTC was so simple it shouldn't need analogies, just correct data. So why isn't everyone demanding the tons of steel and concrete on every level? Is that the only way to keep people believing stupid trash?

psik


You know, a very wise man once said something regarding repeating the same action again and again. I believe it is along the lines of "He who does the same thing repeatedly and expects a different result each time is insane."

What will you do with the exact tons of steel and concrete on each level? We've already provided many sources for the extrapolated information based on blueprints and historical documents, yet you act as if someone has some document hidden away which contains this magic set of numbers for every individual floor, only being held back because everyone is against you.

Guess what? We're not against you. We're all on the same team, we just need to find a common ground.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
Of course it's not the perfect analogy, so don't pick at it for details about the tree mass and the location of the cut. We're not talking models, we're talking about a basic physics principle related to gravity and the path of least resistance. It would make you look like an idiot to focus on my analogy rather than what it represents.


Not perfect!?

It was so bad it was stupid.

What happened to the WTC was so simple it shouldn't need analogies, just correct data. So why isn't everyone demanding the tons of steel and concrete on every level? Is that the only way to keep people believing stupid trash?

psik


You know, a very wise man once said something regarding repeating the same action again and again. I believe it is along the lines of "He who does the same thing repeatedly and expects a different result each time is insane."

What will you do with the exact tons of steel and concrete on each level? We've already provided many sources for the extrapolated information based on blueprints and historical documents, yet you act as if someone has some document hidden away which contains this magic set of numbers for every individual floor, only being held back because everyone is against you.

Guess what? We're not against you. We're all on the same team, we just need to find a common ground.


Who said I expected different results from morons?

Do you ever think I am only really talking to the lurkers.

Give me all of the dumb physics to shoot holes in that you want.

DUH, where is the center of gravity in a tall tree. Where was the center of gravity in the top 29 stories of the south tower. Great comparison.


The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over this 9/11 nonsense.

Duh, what is Newtonian Physics?

Every politician that thinks a 200 ton airliner and fire can obliterate a 400,000+ ton building in less than 2 hours is too stupid to vote for.

psik



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You've really never seen anything tilt before?

No wonder these debates never go anywhere.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You've really never seen anything tilt before?

No wonder these debates never go anywhere.


I have never seen anything as big as the top of the south tower tilt.

Debating Newtonian physics 41 years after the Moon landing is basically stupid. Not resolving this in six months is stupid. For the physicists to not demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete has been really dumb.

One concrete slab outside the core weighed 600 tons. How many trees weigh that much?

Who chops down trees where the center of mass is less than double the width of the tree above the cut?

psik



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How about this?

en.wikinews.org...

It is tilting and the problem was with a CD.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You've really never seen anything tilt before?

No wonder these debates never go anywhere.


I have never seen anything as big as the top of the south tower tilt.

Debating Newtonian physics 41 years after the Moon landing is basically stupid. Not resolving this in six months is stupid. For the physicists to not demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete has been really dumb.

One concrete slab outside the core weighed 600 tons. How many trees weigh that much?

Who chops down trees where the center of mass is less than double the width of the tree above the cut?

psik


Ok, I'd like you to do something for me. Go out, and buy some children's toys. K'Nex would work great. They are cheap, you can buy a ton of them, and they are great for building neat structures. Now, these will be way stronger than the trade center due to their connections being clipped together rather than connected by small bolts. Once, you build a decent sized K'Nex tower will lots of connections, I want you to pull out half of an entire level as well as some of the wall in that area. Will the top of the tower tilt?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You've really never seen anything tilt before?

No wonder these debates never go anywhere.


I have never seen anything as big as the top of the south tower tilt.

Debating Newtonian physics 41 years after the Moon landing is basically stupid. Not resolving this in six months is stupid. For the physicists to not demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete has been really dumb.

One concrete slab outside the core weighed 600 tons. How many trees weigh that much?

Who chops down trees where the center of mass is less than double the width of the tree above the cut?

psik


Ok, I'd like you to do something for me. Go out, and buy some children's toys. K'Nex would work great. They are cheap, you can buy a ton of them, and they are great for building neat structures. Now, these will be way stronger than the trade center due to their connections being clipped together rather than connected by small bolts. Once, you build a decent sized K'Nex tower will lots of connections, I want you to pull out half of an entire level as well as some of the wall in that area. Will the top of the tower tilt?


The bottom of the broken off upper portion did more than tilt.

It moved sideway 20+feet. There is plenty of video of it.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

That is why this TEN YEAR FARCE is so ridiculous. So many things obviously do not make sense and yet pseudo-intellectual clowns are constantly trying to rationalize it away with blather. Nearly 300 columns would have to break simultaneously for that mass to move sideways 20 feet. All of this talk about trusses sagging in the fire can't explain that.

Tell the engineering school to buy those toys.

psik



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You keep getting stars for saying absolutely nothing. Why do you keep getting stars?

I think it just goes to show that the star system here is absolutely useless.

Look, if I find the time and materials this summer in-between a job, taking care of my sick father, and dealing with day-to-day crap now that I'm at home, I'll work on building a model that depicts what may have happened with the towers. Till then, would you calm down and act as if you're a human being and not some robot programmed to yell and scream like a baby?



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
You keep getting stars for saying absolutely nothing. Why do you keep getting stars?


Well let's compare to other posts, let's say... this one, by you.

Well your argument of "the star system here is absolutely useless" is a very convincing argument that the WTC came down from planes and fires alone, you got me there. Star for you.




Look, if I find the time and materials this summer in-between a job, taking care of my sick father, and dealing with day-to-day crap now that I'm at home, I'll work on building a model that depicts what may have happened with the towers. Till then, would you calm down and act as if you're a human being and not some robot programmed to yell and scream like a baby?


Actually, damn, you just changed my mind about giving you a star. And I really was going to!


Look, psikeyhackr is posting more substance than you, and without nearly as much whining. Maybe it's information bias that has you glossing over these parts of his last post:


The bottom of the broken off upper portion did more than tilt.

It moved sideway 20+feet. There is plenty of video of it. ...

Nearly 300 columns would have to break simultaneously for that mass to move sideways 20 feet. All of this talk about trusses sagging in the fire can't explain that.



There are already an immense number of physics issues not addressing by NIST's report, and the hypothesis they offered had no supporting evidence to begin with. So none of this is explained. I have seen plenty of people build models and you would do just as good not to waste your time, because there are real physics issues with scaling materials. For example a small piece of steel can have the same strength in SI units as a real WTC column, and yet have a teeny fraction of either the weight or loading relative to its yield strength. Then when you get into modeling with wooden popsicle sticks or any of the other things people use, you enter the same realm as Richard Gage stacking cardboard boxes on top of each other, or people burning hamster cages.


If you want somewhere to start, then why not just show where NIST provided evidence of their own hypothesis? The natural progression of "hypothesis" to "theory" requires repeated experiments that validate the hypothesis physically, etc. Did NIST ever do this? What do you think? If so, I'm just asking to see where.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You keep getting stars for saying absolutely nothing. Why do you keep getting stars?

I think it just goes to show that the star system here is absolutely useless.

Look, if I find the time and materials this summer in-between a job, taking care of my sick father, and dealing with day-to-day crap now that I'm at home, I'll work on building a model that depicts what may have happened with the towers. Till then, would you calm down and act as if you're a human being and not some robot programmed to yell and scream like a baby?


You call casting psychological aspersions saying something?

LOL

They don't bother me at all. I have built two models demonstrating real physics related to 9/11 which both demonstrate that the NIST is full of crap.

The NIST admitted in 3 places that the distribution of weight of the towers were needed to analyze the impacts. Then they did not do it. They supposedly did a computer simulation of a collapse and then say "collapse was inevitable". But the mere comprehension of the conservation of momentum informs anyone with any brains that the distributions of steel and concrete must have affected any supposed gravitational collapse.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The physics profession should take many decades to live this nonsense down and every high school physics teacher should be slapped up side the head.

Sure, build a model. I could use a laugh. I haven't seen any reasonable model come anywhere near complete collapse.

In fact I have not seen a reaction from Ryan Mackey about my using his explanation of modeling in my video. None of his buddies on JREF have mentioned it either.

It is the people who believe airliners could destroy the buildings that have the mental problems. How did the skyscrapers hold themselves up for 28 years? How much steel was where? That is such a difficult question.


The nation that put men on the Moon should never live down this affront to Newtonian Physics.

psik



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


How about this?

en.wikinews.org...

It is tilting and the problem was with a CD.


SO!?

I have seen it before but I have never seen any mention of how many feet straight down it fell or how much it weighed.

If anything it implies the the towers should not have been able to crush themselves. Obviously that structure was too strong to crush itself with its own inertia even though supposedly analyzed and prepared.. So how could airliners with presumably unpredicted impact points have done it?

It was the CORE that supported most of the weight of the WTC. But that just happens to be what we don't have data on. Like nothing about all of the horizontal beams.

psik






top topics



 
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join