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.

 

One Smart Chic

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am talking about any study published, including the one by Bazant. There is a huge difference between not understanding something and something being erroneous.


I couldn't agree with you more. Except that you are the one who doesn't understand why Bazant is wrong. But it's not because you're stupid. It's because you don't want to know that Bazant's paper is trash. That's why you end up making lame excuses that rely on faith and assumptions, just like Bazant's paper itself. At the end of the day, as much as you talk about science, you really hate it.


You lack the qualifications to make any sensible judgment, you are parroting some conspiracy site.


Let's go over the problems with Bazant's paper again, just to show what kind of "sensible judgment" you have to employ to think he proved any damned thing with his paper.

He assumes a 100% free-fall drop of one story, of the upper block onto the lower block (this obviously did not actually happen). He assumes that up to 95% of the total building mass in either case, not only stayed within the footprints the entire time but that all of it exerted its full gravitational potential on each and every floor (including the concrete dust and other dismembered debris that flew out over the sides of the buildings). He assumes that all of that gravitational energy is absorbed only by the floor that is currently being destroyed, and that none of that energy or force is experiencing in any way whatsoever by the bottom-most floors, which in reality would definitely experience compressional waves of the dynamic force traveling down the building no different than the uppermost floor of the upper block would transmit its own gravitational potential to the lowermost floor of the upper block. He assumes no safety factor, only enough steel to handle design loads when calculating how much energy it would take to fail a floor, effectively pretending that much of the actual steel wasn't even there.

I could go on, but that's enough to show that his model already relies on so many erroneous assumptions that it's a total joke for you to come on here claiming any of this garbage is any better in any way whatsoever than the video the OP posted.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You still fail to realize how engineers and scientists create models. They leave out as much effects as possible that do not influence the outcome too much, making the model as simple as possible. If you know of any effect that has a large enough influence to make the conclusions invalid, then show this. However, like I already told you, I am not going to discuss a topic with you that you clearly do not understand. The last time you tried to debunk Bazant you quoted someone who mixed up force and energy. I pointed that out, and your answer was that is was not an issue because the two are related, and can be interchanged whenever you want. What else can I do than point out that doing that is flat out wrong? I can't really do much more. I am talking to a brick wall who will never acknowledge such mistakes, and even worse, probably doesn't even realize why it is wrong.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You still fail to realize how engineers and scientists create models.


It's already been explained to you by numerous individuals that scientific models are typically created for predicting future events, not explaining something that has already happened. Trying to explain something that has already happened with mathematics is a lot like painting a picture. You could come up with a hundred different models to explain the same thing by tinkering with the variables, and that's exactly what Bazant did. He came up with exactly what he wanted to see, by changing around variables until they had absolutely nothing to do with observed events. Assuming up to 95% of the total mass was utilized in the destruction of each floor is one of those assumptions. Assuming a perfect free-fall to start it all is another one of those assumptions. Pretending that the kinetic energy would only be felt by the floor being destroyed, and would not transfer down the building at all, is another one of those assumptions. It's all TRASH.



The last time you tried to debunk Bazant you quoted someone who mixed up force and energy.


Force and energy are related concepts in physics. Mathematically related concepts, as in there are even formulas pertaining to all of this. Energy is a quantity that is able to perform work, and work is a force applied over a distance. So put on your thinking cap and you might even be able to comprehend how you can mathematically demonstrate the equivalency of force and energy in a closed system. This is literally physics 101 btw in case it's been too many years for you. I can even post the formulas if you care to see them.


I pointed that out, and your answer was that is was not an issue because the two are related, and can be interchanged whenever you want.


They can't be interchanged in the sense that you use the same number and just slap a different unit on the end, but then again that's not what Ross did in the paper you're referring to. Again, if you want to see the formulas I can post them for you.



I am talking to a brick wall who will never acknowledge such mistakes


I will admit a mistake if you actually find one. Unfortunately for you I actually know better than to think energy and force are not physically related. If you had the same decency to admit when you're wrong then this would not be an issue. But like I said, you really hate science. You don't want to know science. You only want to be right, and you only want your beliefs to be justified. That's lazy and naive.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
They can't be interchanged in the sense that you use the same number and just slap a different unit on the end, but then again that's not what Ross did in the paper you're referring to. Again, if you want to see the formulas I can post them for you.


That is exactly what he did. He used a load safety factor on energy consumption, as if they are the same. But enough already, trying to explain this to you is pointless.
edit on 9-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
That is exactly what he did. He used a load safety factor on energy consumption, as if they are the same.


And used the exact same number, and just slapped a different unit on the end? Alright, I'll bite. Show me where he used the exact same number as far as what you're talking about, and just slapped a different unit on the end.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


He used a safety factor meant for a load (N) and applied it to consumed energy (J). How more obvious can it be?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
He used a safety factor meant for a load (N) and applied it to consumed energy (J). How more obvious can it be?


I thought you said he took the same numerical figure for the loading and just slapped energy units on it?

So now you're admitting he must have worked with the loading figure mathematically to arrive at the amount of energy that would have to be consumed to destroy it?


If not, show me where he just took the same number and put a different unit on the end.



You don't have any idea what you're even talking about, do you?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


This is what he said




In fact it totaled out at 211,454 Americans. 211,454 POOR Americans....the Rich didn't participate


And that, is an out and out lie. I know exactly where he was going.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by benoni
 


I find it interesting that when a self-appointed expert says anything that a truther wants to hear the thuther cheers, yet when an expert who actually did a study published in a peer reviewed journal the truther calls him a liar. Apparently hollow rhetoric is worth more than actual science.


Which part from the "self appointed" expert did you object too??

I aint stupid, and everything she said made perfect sense.

Again, which parts do you disagree with?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I wonder if you really do not understand the error or if you are just trolling. Its just hard to tell.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I wonder if you really do not understand the error or if you are just trolling. Its just hard to tell.


When I lay out all the information like I did in the post above, and you respond with a one-line cop-out like this, it really isn't hard to tell what you are doing, and it's the one that starts with "t."



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I disagree with about everything she says about 911. The most damning thing that she says is that almost all experts are liars and we should listen to our uneducated gut feeling by watching to Youtube videos. She actually calls out for making people even more stupid, when I put on my conspiracy hat I would say she is an NWO agent. The spheres she talks about are iron oxide, a very common compound. It could come from several sources, this for example. At the moment I can't watch the video, but if you need more issues with what she says just ask and I will post them later on.
edit on 10-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Right, if you realy, realy do not understand why it is wrong to take a safety factor for loads (N) and the just out of the blue apply it to energy consumption (J), then so be it. Have a nice day bsbray.
edit on 10-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


This is the relation between energy (joules, "J") and force (Newtons, "N"):




All you have to do to go from force to energy, is incorporate a distance.


This is physics 101. I think it's pretty obvious who is having the difficulty here.


Edit to include the link since the above image is transparent: en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 10-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





At the moment I can't watch the video, but if you need more issues with what she says just ask and I will post them later on.


Yes, I'd love to hear you debunk the second law of thermodynamics. That's towards the end of the video, and the most compelling argument she brings up, IMO.

Also, she never once mentioned trusting your gut, that was an early poster...she says, trust your own eyes, and question what doesn't make sense, rather than accept an "expert's" explanation as gospel. Not exactly the same as "all experts are lying, and trust your gut instead."



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do you even remotely realize that the energy that is consumed in crushing a floor largely takes place after the load capacity has been exceeded and the load capacity of the damaged column is completely different from the design load capacity? Oh, why bother. It feels like explaining all over again how applying a large force for a short time can cause a smaller displacement as a small force for a long time. Which you also didn't understand.
edit on 10-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


She literally says that experts are lying. What else would you call it when a non- expert given an opinion after watching a Youtube video? Would you call it a gut feeling or an expert opinion?

As for the her thermodynamics argument, I already gave you a plausible source for those micro spheres, but there are other rational explanations too. So no, steel columns or fires didn't need to reach those kind of temperatures that day to create them.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by joechip
 


She literally says that experts are lying. What else would you call it when a non- expert given an opinion after watching a Youtube video? Would you call it a gut feeling or an expert opinion?

As for the her thermodynamics argument, I already gave you a plausible source for those micro spheres, but there are other rational explanations too. So no, steel columns or fires didn't need to reach those kind of temperatures that day to create them.


But how many experts are lying and how many experts ARE SAYING NOTHING?

It seems that there are a lot of people who want to TRUST EXPERTS and not THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

I get the impression that Richard Gage expects this. When I asked him about the steel and concrete on every level he got a shocked look on his face and said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints. How the steel has to be distributed depends on gravity and it must be similar all over the world. I can't find the steel and concrete specified level by level for any skyscraper anywhere in the world.

The EXPERTS are handing us a bunch of bull# by pretending things are more difficult to understand than they really are. I saw this behavior in the computer industry decades before 9/11. The computers are all von Neumann machines but you almost never hear the term. What kind of computers were used to design the Empire State Building?

www.youtube.com...

So the problem is all of the people who refuse to think for themselves and insist on believing this is a complicated problem. There are EXPERTS on both sides of the issue on some kind of ego trip trying to convince us that WE NEED THEM. This is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS! It is almost hilarious that people on both sides don't say we need a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. What is complicated about that?

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by dadgad
my oh my, there are still believers of the official story. HOW is that possible?

Please, get to your senses.

If airplanes can do this. Well. Lets fire the demolition teams, we dont need them no longer!


Yeah, because it would be so much cheaper and easier to employ suicidal pilots fly aeroplanes into buildings when you wanted to demolish them.

No plane hit wtc 7


Which makes his idea even stupider.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I already told you to produce these "grade school physics". If you can't, you either don't have a grade school level of physics, or you are wrong and it is a lot more complicated. Either way your opinion can be ignored.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join