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.

 

Which is the more reasonable sensiate premise?

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The idea of the top 15% of a skyscraper crushing down the lower 85% is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. The way the strength and therefore the steel must make it IMPOSSIBLE.


Totally ridiculous to a select number of people why do not understand physics but think they do. To people who do understand physics, it is quite reasonable. I don't need to remind you that an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The idea of the top 15% of a skyscraper crushing down the lower 85% is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. The way the strength and therefore the steel must make it IMPOSSIBLE.


Totally ridiculous to a select number of people why do not understand physics but think they do. To people who do understand physics, it is quite reasonable. I don't need to remind you that an argument from incredulity is a fallacy.


So what is stopping you from building a physical model that can totally collapse?

What about the conservation of momentum alone making it IMPOSSIBLE for the structure to come down in less than 12 seconds? That is one of the most absurd facts about this mess. All of the people with degrees in physics not demanding the steel and concrete distribution on the buildings.

What does their not wanting the information say about their SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY even if the planes did bring the buildings down?

psik



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what is stopping you from building a physical model that can totally collapse?


Same reason you are not building a physical model of the titanic to see if it really sinks. Physics is not all about physical models.


What about the conservation of momentum alone making it IMPOSSIBLE for the structure to come down in less than 12 seconds? That is one of the most absurd facts about this mess. All of the people with degrees in physics not demanding the steel and concrete distribution on the buildings.


Show the math. But let me guess, math is not required? You are arguing from incredulity again.


What does their not wanting the information say about their SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY even if the planes did bring the buildings down?


When people understand the general aspects of a phenomena, most of the curiosity goes away.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

All this talk of models and whatnot makes me think it's 2007 all over again. Fun fact: Quintiere et al did just that. They built a 1/20-scale model of the 96th floor of 1WTC and lit a fire.


Abstract: This paper presents an experimental investigation of the World Trade Center Tower 1 (WTC1) collapse using a 1/20-scale model. The WTC1 fire on the 96th floor is reconstructed on a small scale, and structural members including the floor trusses and the exterior wall subsystem are built and tested under scaled fire load. Scaling rules are used to determine the values of the insulating material on the structural systems. This experimental study demonstrates the use of scaled models to investigate a real-world fire disaster. Results from the experimental investigation are compared to analytical results and visual evidence compiled in the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the investigation of the collapse of WTC towers. This study helps engineers and researchers better understand the fire behavior and the associated structural response in WTC1, and a more solidly grounded collapse hypothesis can therefore pursued.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


You can point that out but it is pure kryptonite to thruthers. It is ignored altogether, just watch.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by roboe
 


You can point that out but it is pure kryptonite to thruthers. It is ignored altogether, just watch.



Originally posted by -PLB-
Physics is not all about physical models.


Well not unless it supports your side of the argument I guess?


If there was a link to that paper there would be something to discus. Did that paper prove that failing trusses could cause the towers to completely collapse, without slowing and arresting due to resistance and loss of Ke?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Well not unless it supports your side of the argument I guess?



I have only mentioned this model twice now in all my posts on ATS. If you call that "all about" then you are not sane.


If there was a link to that paper there would be something to discus. Did that paper prove that failing trusses could cause the towers to completely collapse, without slowing and arresting due to resistance and loss of Ke?


I don't have a link to it as you need to pay for it, but you as interested truther who is interested in the truth should have bought it and studied it years ago. The model replicated collapse initiation. The results matched the actual WTC collapse and showed the conclusions in the NIST report were fairly accurate, although acouple of discrepancies were found (Quintiere is actually skeptical towards the NIST report). For example, the trusses with fireproofing reached much higher temperatures than NIST predicted. I must say I have not read the paper either as I have no major issue with the NIST explanation so don't need any additional evidence.


edit on 1-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what is stopping you from building a physical model that can totally collapse?


Same reason you are not building a physical model of the titanic to see if it really sinks. Physics is not all about physical models.


But physical models are about physics. So if a model can't be made to do what WTC1 supposedly did then our so called physicists have a problem.

The Titanic was not the first ship to have sunk nor the last.

When did a skyscraper ever collapse straight down due to fire before 9/11? When has a skyscraper collapsed since 9/11?

When has anyone pointed out any physics defying aspect of the sinking of the Titanic? It took two and a half hours for the Titanic to sink. One tower came down in less than one hour and the other in less than two.

psik



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But physical models are about physics.

So, any model that you ascribe the word "physics" to is therefore a perfect proof of your contentions because it is "physical"? Do all physics models have only one possible solution or attribution?

So if a model can't be made to do what WTC1 supposedly did then our so called physicists have a problem.

How so? Physicists rarely construct models to prove their theories, mathematics is generally the conventional method. Do you have a mathematical model that proves the WTC could NOT have been compromised by the known events of 9/11 and if not, why not? Math is the language of science, not broomsticks, washers and copy paper.

The Titanic was not the first ship to have sunk nor the last.

Well you got at least one thing right.

When did a skyscraper ever collapse straight down due to fire before 9/11?

Never before and never since and most importantly, not even on 9/11! (the building collapses were caused by fire, explosion and impact).

When has a skyscraper collapsed since 9/11?

None has. So what? Its not like the planet earth is covered with forest of skyscrapers. As structures go, they are pretty rare. Therefore catastrophes involving skyscrapers would be extremely rare.

When has anyone pointed out any physics defying aspect of the sinking of the Titanic?

Well, to date, no one has pointed out any physics defying aspects of the WTC tower collapses either.

It took two and a half hours for the Titanic to sink. One tower came down in less than one hour and the other in less than two.

Yep, that's right. What does it prove?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You can point that out but it is pure kryptonite to thruthers. It is ignored altogether, just watch.


Notice how the results of that study weren't even posted.

I wonder if you dug them up, if you'd be any more willing to talk about them, than you are willing to talk about Bazant's trash papers.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


But physical models are about physics.

So, any model that you ascribe the word "physics" to is therefore a perfect proof of your contentions because it is "physical"? Do all physics models have only one possible solution or attribution?


No physical model can defy the Laws of Physics but that does not necessarily mean a model is universally applicable.

Building a model that does not collapse is not PROOF that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a model that can collapse. But it is certainly curious that no one has done it in NINE YEARS. But a physics model does make it possible to experiment with different characteristics. If I used sections of toilet tissue rolls which were much stronger than the paper loops then the difference in behavior could be observed.

But my model does show that the so called potential energy of the lower stationary structure is irrelevant to the result. Only the distance that the mass falls through empty space contributes energy to crushing paper loops. That should be obvious and should not even require a model to figure out.

It just shows how ridiculous the physics profession has been for so long. Why don't they want accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level so the Potential Energy can be computed accurately?

psik



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Building a model that does not collapse is not PROOF that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a model that can collapse.

No, it is not. Not by a long shot. In fact to a build a model that is inconclusive is a complete waste of time.

But it is certainly curious that no one has done it in NINE YEARS.

That's because real scientist and engineers use math, not arts and crafts, to test theories.

But a physics model does make it possible to experiment with different characteristics.

No, it doesn't. Model building, in fact, is restrictive and limiting because you are limited to available materials. And unless you have an extremely disciplined material supplier small variations in quality will result in inconsistent and therefore useless observations.

If I used sections of toilet tissue rolls which were much stronger than the paper loops then the difference in behavior could be observed.

And if you used toliet tissue rolls from different manufacturers then you would again get different results. And what about the washers? How do you scale them to your new toliet rolls? And why all the round objects? The World Trade Center towers were not round. Very important point, the exterior wall panels offered each other lateral support. Etc., etc., etc.

But my model does show that the so called potential energy of the lower stationary structure is irrelevant to the result. Only the distance that the mass falls through empty space contributes energy to crushing paper loops. That should be obvious and should not even require a model to figure out.

Well, there is your little problem, thanks to your "model". You are trying to crush paper loops which may be cute and fun to watch but has nothing to do with the construction of the World Trade Center.

It just shows how ridiculous the physics profession has been for so long. Why don't they want accurate data on the amount of steel and concrete on every level so the Potential Energy can be computed accurately?

Because unless you can show that there was a significant difference than it is irrelevant. You should read the NIST report someday. Interesting stuff in there.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
When did a skyscraper ever collapse straight down due to fire before 9/11? When has a skyscraper collapsed since 9/11?


When did a Boing 737 ever crashed into a skyscraper before 9/11


When has anyone pointed out any physics defying aspect of the sinking of the Titanic? It took two and a half hours for the Titanic to sink. One tower came down in less than one hour and the other in less than two.


That one is easy. It is just RIDICULOUS that a bit of frozen water could SINK a ship with a hull several centimeters think. Even after all these years they never published the TONNES and TONNES of steel distribution of the ship. The only conclusion can be that EXPLOSIVES were used to sink the Titanic.


That is the kind of rhetoric I read from you and other truthers. It never goes any further than that. I asked you to show the maths why conservation of momentum would mean that the collapse would arrest. You answer was, and I quote: ""



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Like I said, you are not qualified to discuss any physics. It is utterly pointless, as you do not understand the most simple concepts. If you disagree, for starters lets go back to the differential equation I solved on your request, which you called "over complicated garbage". You have completely disqualified yourself for any serious discussion.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

That's because real scientist and engineers use math, not arts and crafts, to test theories.

No, it doesn't. Model building, in fact, is restrictive and limiting because you are limited to available materials. And unless you have an extremely disciplined material supplier small variations in quality will result in inconsistent and therefore useless observations.


That is just further demonstration of the FARCE of 9/11.

People trying to pretend that the physics of skyscrapers is complicated.

The problem with trying to build a model of the WTC to test a collapse in the Square cube Law. Making the model smaller increases the strength relative to the mass. Therefore a weaker material must be used. But whatever is used MUST be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD.

What can be used weaker than paper but still support the static load. And I deliberately tested the paper loops to make the structure as weak as possible relative to the load.

The people that cannot build a model have to come up with EXCUSES to claim my model is not valid. Now my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. But any tube-in-tube structure is going to cost a lot more, take a lot more labor and need more detailed information on the towers.

Our professional physicists have already spent NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not demanding accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete. So how can they demand the information now to make a model? How can they say the information is important? So all they can do is try to intimidate people with their EXPERTISE after they have already advertising their incompetence for too long.

psik



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
When did a Boing 737 ever crashed into a skyscraper before 9/11


And the south tower deflected all of 15 inches that no one ever talks about.

Besides me.


And then the EXPERTS won't specify the steel and concrete on every level. Yeah, the structural engineers and physicists have spent NEARLY TEN YEARS demonstrating their brilliance in not supplying the obvious data about a grade school physics problem.

psik
edit on 1-6-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

edit on 2-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


And yet you are unable to produce these "grade school" physics yourself. That doesn't really make you look like someone who anyone would listen to concerning physics.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That is just further demonstration of the FARCE of 9/11.

What? That reputable professionals are not sitting in their collective basement building toy models that poorly demonstrate known reactions? The "farce" would be if they did.

People trying to pretend that the physics of skyscrapers is complicated.

It is extremely complicated. Just like the physics with bridges and other complex structures. Which is why, I suspect, that you are having trouble comprehending the complexity of the reactions in a structure.

The problem with trying to build a model of the WTC to test a collapse in the Square cube Law. Making the model smaller increases the strength relative to the mass. Therefore a weaker material must be used. But whatever is used MUST be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD.

Or, they can just calculate the reactions and capacities like engineers and scientist do every day, all over the world, with reasonable outcomes.

What can be used weaker than paper but still support the static load. And I deliberately tested the paper loops to make the structure as weak as possible relative to the load.

You know waht you can use instead of paper loops? Math. Works much better.

The people that cannot build a model have to come up with EXCUSES to claim my model is not valid.

Actually, the "people" don't care.

Now my model is not a tube-in-tube structure.

No, its a broomstick in washer structure.

But any tube-in-tube structure is going to cost a lot more, take a lot more labor and need more detailed information on the towers.

Let me guess - the information you need is the "distribution of steel and concrete on each level". Read the NIST report. Maybe its in there, I know they have the loading calculations for each level, the weight of the steel, the weight of concrete. Read it, you may find it interesting.

Our professional physicists have already spent NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not demanding accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete.

Really? Do you know of anyone else who thinks all the world's physicists are fools because they have not demanded that someone else sit down and do simple calculations that they can do themselves? I think you may be alone on this one.

So how can they demand the information now to make a model?

They don't. They are professionals.

How can they say the information is important?

They don't. And if they did they would simply sit down with the extensive amount of information in the NIST report and do their own calculations.

So all they can do is try to intimidate people with their EXPERTISE after they have already advertising their incompetence for too long.

And yet they don't seem to care what you think because you can't prove anything.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Here's a link to a paper James Quintiere wrote after his model:

www.fpe.umd.edu...

It has some information on the model and a couple of pictures, too.

What I find interesting is his thoughts on NIST's conclusions even after he built this model:

"The NIST analysis has flaws, is incomplete, and has led to an unsupported conclusion on the cause of the collapse."

And he recommends:

"...all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join