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.

 

The NIST report, start to finish

page: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by hooper
 
One note about this, Bazant proved that even if for some freaky reason the supports in the top section would fall exactly on the supports in the lower section, exactly as it was design to be,Text the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry. So even in the most simplistic model assuming the most optimistic case for arrest the building would still collapse.

The most damning thing about a couple truthers is that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just shout "there was not enough energy" as loud as you can, repeat it as many times as you can, and they start believing in the lie.`


What does this mean?

the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry

Supports on WHICH LEVEL of the building?

If the falling top of of the north tower hit the top of the stationary portion then the impacting level would BOTH have their static load capacities exceeded. TWO LEVELS would be crushed simultaneously.

Bazant is full of crap with the upper portion remaining intact while the lower portion is destroyed. Crushing those two levels would require energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling portion. Therefore it would slow down. Then the next two levels would have to be crushed etc, etc. The 14 or 15 levels coming down from the top would run out long before the 90 stationary levels below would.

The phenomenon has already been demonstrated.

The GREAT Ryan Mackey has already done an incompetent job of explaining the model.

www.youtube.com...

The only way for the entire north tower to have come down in less than 18 seconds is for the supports to have been destroyed from below. But then the GLORIOUSLY SCIENTIFIC NIST report does not even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the tower to be crushed from above. So how can a good computer simulation be done.

Excellent science for the nation that put men on the Moon.

letsrollforums.com...

psik




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by budaruskie
 


I don't really follow your line of reasoning. First you explain how a house is not at all like the WTC tower and then you make a case how it is strange that a burning house doesn't behave the same as a WTC tower which had a Boing 737 crashed into it.


Simply put, I explained how a house isn't really comparable to the WTC towers because its comprised almost entirely of combustable material and its weakes points are nails. Then I go on to explain how this weaker more combustable structure, doesn't disintegrate like the WTC towers did. Logically, you'd expect the less combustable and more structurally sound building to withstand the fire better; but that isn't what happened. That means what?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because it isn't. The first floor of course failed because it was weakened. It can well be possible that the next floor is strong enough to arrest the collapse. However, once an undamaged floor fails, the next undamaged floor inevitable will also fail. It is impossible to arrest collapse at this point as both mass and velocity increases with each floor that fails.


And how did you figure this out? By "imagining" it? You know you actually have to have numbers to justify a claim like that, right? Not to mention "pancake theory" has been refuted by NIST for years so I have no clue how you are thinking all of this is even happening, but I can't help but think you are still imagining flat pancakes of floors flapping into each other like dominoes.


For how quick you accuse others of making fallacies you must be completely blind to them when you post them yourself. You might as well have just told me a bed time story.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


It is something called physics. Since you don't come with anything substantial to rebut my post it looks like deep down you complete agree with what I wrote there. Or is there anything you disagree with? If so, what exactly and why?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I'm going to repeat this post here for you, it might help you understand better...



Note what is said, when internal friction is present (observed by flying debris, noise etc.) then momentum is conserved (both objects push against each other, as they both want to maintain their momentum equally), but energy is NOT conserved (potential, kinetic). That is why the collapse can not be complete, unless another external energy was present that is not being accounted for.

Also note he said that any kind of collision can be figured out using the law of moment conservation, and yes that includes buildings collapsing.

The only time energy is conserved (potential, kinetic) is in a perfect elastic collision such as two spheres. Energy is always lost unless the collision is perfectly elastic and that is very rare in the real world, even billiard balls lose some energy due to friction with the surface they're on (unless it's a really slick surface, and the balls are shiny smooth).



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
It is something called physics.


Maybe you're unable to read my posts again. That "something called physics" is exactly what is missing in your post, and that was my whole point.

You claim that after the first undamaged floor collapsed, then it's all over and there's no stopping it no matter what. Physics is a language of formulas and numbers. There is nothing to proof what you just claimed.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by hooper
 
One note about this, Bazant proved that even if for some freaky reason the supports in the top section would fall exactly on the supports in the lower section, exactly as it was design to be,Text the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry. So even in the most simplistic model assuming the most optimistic case for arrest the building would still collapse.

The most damning thing about a couple truthers is that they do not have a clue what they are talking about. Just shout "there was not enough energy" as loud as you can, repeat it as many times as you can, and they start believing in the lie.`


What does this mean?

the dynamic load would still be a factor 8 greater than the supports could carry

Supports on WHICH LEVEL of the building?

If the falling top of of the north tower hit the top of the stationary portion then the impacting level would BOTH have their static load capacities exceeded. TWO LEVELS would be crushed simultaneously.


All been addressed in his papers.


Bazant is full of crap with the upper portion remaining intact while the lower portion is destroyed. Crushing those two levels would require energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling portion. Therefore it would slow down.


And guess what happens after it is slowed down? Did the gravity disappear? No, gravity is still acting on it. What happens to a falling body that is under the influence of gravity?


Then the next two levels would have to be crushed etc, etc. The 14 or 15 levels coming down from the top would run out long before the 90 stationary levels below would.


So you think like some delusional truthers that all that mass of collapsed floors magically disappeared or ejected? It is indeed a requirement to dismiss a natural collapse. The consequence though is that you have to accept that magic exists. Or you will have to explain how this mass was ejected and could not possibly make the collapse progress. But its not like that is going to happen.


The phenomenon has already been demonstrated.

The GREAT Ryan Mackey has already done an incompetent job of explaining the model.

www.youtube.com...

The only way for the entire north tower to have come down in less than 18 seconds is for the supports to have been destroyed from below. But then the GLORIOUSLY SCIENTIFIC NIST report does not even tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the tower to be crushed from above. So how can a good computer simulation be done.

Excellent science for the nation that put men on the Moon.

letsrollforums.com...

psik


Baseless assertions, argument from incredulity. "Because I can not create a model that collapses like the towers, the towers could not have collapsed like they did".



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The energy source is the potential energy. This energy is transformed into kinetic energy as a body falls. This happens all the way down to the ground. In other words, the kinetic energy is constantly increasing during the fall. Sure it decreases when resistance is offered, but gravity, an external force, is constantly increasing it again.

Nevertheless you showed some really nice calculations there, well done.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I already gave an example with actual numbers on the previous page in a reply to budaruskie. If you do not understand the number I wrote there, tell me what you did not understand and I will explain them.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

So you think like some delusional truthers that all that mass of collapsed floors magically disappeared or ejected? It is indeed a requirement to dismiss a natural collapse. The consequence though is that you have to accept that magic exists. Or you will have to explain how this mass was ejected and could not possibly make the collapse progress. But its not like that is going to happen.


So build a physical model that can completely collapse.

Has Bazant done it? Has anybody done it? Lying with mathematics is still lying. Physics does not give a damn about mathematics. So liars want people to be dumb enough to not figure out the defective math.

Gravity was there for 28 years without the building collapsing. Once the kinetic energy is lost due to crushing supports the remaining structure would continue to support the now static load.

So you can call people things like delusional. That does not mean you can make the physics do what you say. You can call any model you try to make that does not do what you say "delusional" also. The physics will not give a damn. Words have no effect on physics. You just think psychological BS can influence people that know what they are talking about. You can only use the psychological BS on the ignorant.

But now our engineering schools have a problem for not settling this in SIX MONTHS. They need to keep people ignorant to keep the lie going.

But how can the math be correct if we don't even have correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete? Claiming to do math for physics without even having correct data on the mass is certainly delusional. At least we can be sure the WTC was not designed to be as weak as possible like my model. And any grade school kid can duplicate my model even if the don't know the math.

After TEN YEARS grade school kids can show that PhD physicists have been going along with silly bullsh# in the nation that put men on the Moon.

psik



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 



I'm only going to point out that the building was designed to bare "eccentric" loads as you call it, all you have to do is look at the data collected by A&E911...and it was all data that was available before 9/11.

Sorry, I don't need the folks at AE&^%&% to tell me that all buildings are designed to bear any kind of eccentric loading. Thats kind of the meaning of "eccentric", loading something in any way other than it was designed to be loaded.

Furthermore, your house example is not accurate for several reasons. First off, houses are typically made of pine and sheetrock while the towers were made of hardened steel and concrete, very different as you know.

The material is completely irrelevant to the concept of eccentric loading, I used the typical wood frame home because it is a more common and friendly example.

All of the trusses (if any) in a home as well as all other components (unless built in "hurricane zones") are held together by various sizes of nails, except maybe the ceiling sheetrock which would be small screws. The components in the WTC buildings were either welded together or bolted together or both, again very different.

Again, irrelevant to the idea, could be popiscle sticks holding up toy ducks, doesn't matter. Shift the load from its design lines and the structure can fail.

Now here comes the really really big problem with the example. Have you ever seen a house catch on fire? I have personally seen it up close and VERY personal. In fact, I've personally seen a house newer than any of the WTC buildings burn unchecked for over an hour before firefighters got water on it. In the end, the entire roof and second story of the house were burnt to ash, as well as parts of the first. You know what NEVER DID HAPPEN, the house NEVER COLLAPSED, NEVER TURNED TO DUST, MOST OF THE 1ST FLOOR WAS STILL INTACT.

Good for you, you saw a house burn that didn't collapse. And that proves what, exactly?

Again, that house was made of combustable material i.e. pine 2X's....and it survived a longer fire than a well known over-engineered steel and concrete high rise building. Really makes you question the OS when you see that with your own eyes.

Yes, yes it does. If, in fact, that is your only experience with structures and fires. Now what do you tell me - I've seen buildings burn and collapse. I've seen bridges fully charged with explosives that didn't collapse and I've seen buildings come tumbling down because one exterior wall was removed (the building, having its lateral support removed racked and then the eccentric loading caused by the racking caused the building to collapse - it was a steel frame building with metal panel walls and standing seam roof).

Oh yeah, please don't tell me the plane made the building fall, not even the gov't agrees with that and you can find plenty of videos on the net of vehicles driving into houses that don't turn to dust.

Nobody is telling you that only the imapct of the plane caused the building to collapse. The only place you will hear that is from so-called truth seekers trying to ignore the truth.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So build a physical model that can completely collapse.

Has Bazant done it? Has anybody done it? Lying with mathematics is still lying. Physics does not give a damn about mathematics. So liars want people to be dumb enough to not figure out the defective math.

Gravity was there for 28 years without the building collapsing. Once the kinetic energy is lost due to crushing supports the remaining structure would continue to support the now static load.


Next question, once the supports failed due to the top section falling on it, what happens to the top section? Will it stop falling and hover in the air (as the supports failed so it has nothing to rest on)? Or will it continue falling to the next floor (as there is nothing there to stop it from falling)?


So you can call people things like delusional. That does not mean you can make the physics do what you say. You can call any model you try to make that does not do what you say "delusional" also. The physics will not give a damn. Words have no effect on physics. You just think psychological BS can influence people that know what they are talking about. You can only use the psychological BS on the ignorant.


I am not saying you are delusional because of your model. I am saying that you are delusional when you claim that (almost) all mass somehow "ejected" or disappeared and there wasn't any mass left to make the collapse progress.


But now our engineering schools have a problem for not settling this in SIX MONTHS. They need to keep people ignorant to keep the lie going.

But how can the math be correct if we don't even have correct data on the distributions of steel and concrete? Claiming to do math for physics without even having correct data on the mass is certainly delusional. At least we can be sure the WTC was not designed to be as weak as possible like my model. And any grade school kid can duplicate my model even if the don't know the math.

After TEN YEARS grade school kids can show that PhD physicists have been going along with silly bullsh# in the nation that put men on the Moon.

psik


You are a broken record. There are good approximations for the mass. You just ignore them.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


So here's the other post you're now deferring to from the previous page:


Originally posted by -PLB-
I think the best way to explain this is by using an example. The first floor fails and the top section fall down about 4 meter. During this fall its speed increased from 0 to ~9m/s due to gravity. After falling 4 meter, the top section crashes into to the floor below which offer resistance. Depending on the amount of resistance, the top section slows down to, for example, 5m/s. Now there is a top section plus one additional floor falling down 4 meter to the next floor, but now with an initial speed of 5m/s. So after falling 4 meter again, the speed at which it hits the next floor ~10m/s. Again it is slowed down by the resistance of the floor, but since its speed is higher and the mass is larger it is slowed down less than before. And so on.



Two words: "pancake collapse."

You are still acting as if this is what happened when even NIST refutes it. Yeah, the floor fell down together like single units, just like you can see a stack of 110 floors at the bottom of each tower after it was done "collapsing."


Again if you were actually reading my posts you would see I already told you that pancake collapse has been debunked even by NIST for years now. I realize you are still scrambling to reconcile all these discrepancies but could you try a little harder?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by budaruskie
 



Yes, yes it does. If, in fact, that is your only experience with structures and fires. Now what do you tell me - I've seen buildings burn and collapse. I've seen bridges fully charged with explosives that didn't collapse and I've seen buildings come tumbling down because one exterior wall was removed (the building, having its lateral support removed racked and then the eccentric loading caused by the racking caused the building to collapse - it was a steel frame building with metal panel walls and standing seam roof).


Actually, I have quite a bit more experience with structures, not necessarily fires. Regardless, if you would be so kind, please show me the building collapse because of one exterior wall if at all possible. Thanks.
edit on 5/19/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is nothing about a pancake collapse in my post. The pancake collapse is about a single floor failing and falling down and then taking floors below with it. I talk about the the complete top section falling down and taking the floors below with it.

So what exactly do you not understand about what I write now that this pancake issue is out of the way?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Sorry, I can't show you. Its not something I found on the internet, its something I personally witnessed in the ancient days before everyone walked around with a telephone that had a video camera.

The idea is quite simple. Structures are designed to transfer loads along the lines of support. This way you only need material strong enough and in sufficient quantity to fulfill that mandate. If you alter those lines by deforming the structure by, say fire, explosion and high speed impact of a large object then the remaining structure will fail as it is also eccentrically loaded. As to your burning building that did not collapse - that is a perfect example that proves the point. The fire did not cause the structure to move so the structural elements stayed in their design lines. The cross section of the supports may have been diminished by virtue of the fire but obviously not to the extent that there was insufficient compressive strength left to carry the loads. Also, I imagine that as the fire progressed those loads actually decreased as the roof and floor loads were consumed by the fire. By I will venture a guess that it did not take a lot of effort to knock the thing over when it was all done.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I talk about the the complete top section falling down and taking the floors below with it.


The way you are describing floors impacting each other is pancake theory. Again, there would be a stack of floors at the base. There were not.


You want other problems with your "example"? You still have no clue how much resistance an intact would have offered. That's pretty damned important to be hand-waving away and just asserting from incredulity that it wouldn't make any difference.

The way you add a destroyed floor onto the falling mass as if it's that simple is also very confused. You are not taking into account mass lost over the sides of the building (you already well know that the majority of the mass of both buildings did not come to rest within the footprints, and don't pull out your stupid faith argument of it all went into the basements either unless you have some proof of that too big boy), you aren't taking into account the fact that the mass is pulverized and doesn't offer a concentrated impact force by any means, etc. Basically you are trying to simplify a very complex set of physical interactions in a way that allows you to pigeon-hole any aspect of it that would be inconvenient for you to explain. And the end result is a theoretical model that would be grossly inconsistent with what was actually seen.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Hello mister slander who comes with false claims about me.


HUH? You must have forgotten about this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you say on ATS never goes away.


Yes. Problem is that you do not understand how to apply them.


Say the person who thinks all it takes is KE and gravity.


Yes they would. This is one of your baseless assertions. Show the math.


There is no need to show maths to know that as a fact. The laws of motion and momentum conservation is all you need to understand any collision.


Ehhh, no, it is only decreased by the amount of displacement. The portion it is decreased is transformed to kinetic energy which in turn is partly transformed into energy forms like heat and sound.


I can't even make sense of that. It has Ke as soon as it moves, Pe is transformed into Ke, and then when it hits resistance the Ke transfers into heat and sound, deformation, and again potential. It can not do all that and maintain all its Ke. And you think something that was designed to hold more than twice it's weight is not going to change most of that Ke into other forms of energy from all that resistance of undamaged structure? The proof is in all the ejected material, the noise of the collapse, that is Ke transforming into other energy.


When the complete building has collapsed, there is no potential energy left (taking ground level as reference). All of it is transformed into another form of energy.


...And what would that energy be?


Your point that there isn't enough energy for the building to collapse by gravity only is nothing but a baseless assertion.


No, it is fact based on the known laws of motion.


You haven't done any calculations to come to this conclusion, it is nothing more than your uneducated opinion. So show the math to support your baseless assertions and I will point out where you went wrong.


Calculations are not needed as the evidence makes it more than obvious that there must have been another energy source acting on the towers that has not been addressed. Calculations would only be required to iron out the details, the law of moment conservation is enough to explain any collision.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Then what do you feel the extra energy source was...you always say there has to be something else but offer nothing. Say it man, what do you feel added the extra energy? According to your understanding of physics something else had to be applied so what is it.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I know your delusion forces you to believe that almost all mass was magically ejected. I can't help you with that but saying it is a delusion and this didn't happen. Enough mass was left.




top topics



 
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join