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: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.


Look Bozo. Physics is not what is in a book. Physics is what happens all around you. The Laws of Physics are incapable of telling how old anyone is. When grade school kids throw baseballs they are subject to the same gravitational acceleration as any other object on the surface of the Earth.

So you need AUTHORITY to tell you what to think. That is YOUR PROBLEM.

Are you saying grade school kids can't build my model?

This country produces college graduates who can't explain winter and summer.

www.youtube.com...

www.ehow.com...

I designed and built a telegraph in grade school without any of my nitwit teachers who could not teach math worth a damn. People that BELIEVE the towers could collapse have to RATIONALIZE it by disappearing the core.

psik




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
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."



I thought all experts agreed with Truthers anyway?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You can also just politely agree that you are not able to produce those "grade school physics". No need to get grumpy.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

You can also just politely agree that you are not able to produce those "grade school physics". No need to get grumpy.


I have no idea what you call PRODUCING Grade School Physics.

I provided a link to my Python program computing a magical collapse with the conservation of momentum. You are simply saying that anything that does not agree with your conclusion must be wrong. The trouble is your complicated conclusion is STUPID therefore Grade School Physics is a problem for you. The United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years over this 9/11 business. Trying to tell stupid lies to grade school kids. SHAME, SHAME!


What we call Newtonian Physics is THREE HUNDRED YEARS OLD.

But physics still worked the same way BEFORE CALCULUS WAS INVENTED.

Mathematics is not physics. Physics has to be observed then the equations that CONFORM TO THE PHYSICS are selected. That does not mean math controls physics. Plenty of people MOSTLY MEN go off on ego trips using the math to try to PROVE to other people that they are really smart and therefore need to keep things complicated and mysterious.

It would take energy to crush the cores of the towers from the top therefore any falling mass would slow down. So why don't all of the people claiming to know physics demand to know the steel in the core on every level so they can compute the energy required to do that compression? The fact that the subject is not brought up by Richard Gage and Steven Jones is certainly interesting.

It takes about 0.118 joules to crush one of the paper loops in my model. So the energy of my mass falling through EMPTY SPACE is used up and it is bought to a STOP.

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Where is this link to your Python program? Can you post it again? Mathematics is the language of physics. If you are not familiar with that language, you can't have a very huge understanding of physics, nor can you easily demonstrate concepts in physics to others. For the rest it is the broken record talking again. ps, I am not an American.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Where is this link to your Python program? Can you post it again? Mathematics is the language of physics. If you are not familiar with that language, you can't have a very huge understanding of physics, nor can you easily demonstrate concepts in physics to others. For the rest it is the broken record talking again. ps, I am not an American.


Who cares whether or not you are American?

If you know so much about physics then why don't you want to know the amount of steel and concrete on every level of the towers? What data do you expect to plug into what equations? You can't even accurately compute the potential energy of the towers without that info.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

Anyone that understands physics should have figured out that information was necessary to analyzing the problem and concluded that it was extremely unlikely that airliners could obliterate buildings 2000+ times their mass in less than two hours.

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
psik,

I love your stuff man. Great videos and approach to these problems.

There is another method to observe the obvious demolition without doing the mass distribution and that
is by following the demo wave as it descends.

The upper mass cannot self destruct itself apart if there's little/ no opposing force. The upper block is chasing
the demo wave at the same rate.

For those that don't follow psik's physics explanations, or this example of lack of resistance, just imagine
two vehicles colliding. One car is moving forward at 50 MPH. The second car is chasing at 51 MPH.
Very little impact force and therefore not enough to demo the car by impact alone.

Alternatively if the car impacted was stopped, the resistance would be much greater and the force of collision
would cause more damage. still not enough energy to destroy either car.
edit on 10-6-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



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


You are the only person in the world I know of who has issues obtaining that information. So it is your personal issue really.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

One car is moving forward at 50 MPH. The second car is chasing at 51 MPH.
Very little impact force and therefore not enough to demo the car by impact alone.

Alternatively if the car impacted was stopped, the resistance would be much greater and the force of collision
would cause more damage. still not enough energy to destroy either car.


Let me get this straight, car traveling 51 mph impacting a stopped car will still not have enough energy to destroy either car?

I love Truther physics its so much more interesting than real physics.
edit on 10-6-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You are the only person in the world I know of who has issues obtaining that information. So it is your personal issue really.


All that demonstrates is that you don't know much.

Lon Water's has a very detailed site about modeling the WTC. Lots of information about the core columns with cross sections and everything. Just one funny thing. Almost no mention of the horizontal beams in the core. I have never seen a layout of how those beams were arranged but they appear in the Purdue simulation.

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

I e-mailed three people at Purdue. One told me to contact Professor Sozen. I had already e-mailed him. NO RESPONSE.

The experts are either lying or playing ostrich on this and then there are lots of people pretending that information is available when it isn't. The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers though they do it for the steel in three places.

This entire 9/11 business is a FARCE.

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Not both cars completely. I love your lack of education and BS 'design engineering'.

Do you still think AIR cut up the steel columns?


Not surprising, you totally overlooked the concept when applying this to either of the twin towers.

WHich one are you: The emotional one, or deliberately misguiding the honest researchers?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I have never seen a layout of how those beams were arranged but they appear in the Purdue simulation.


NIST NCSTAR 1-1A, Page 96, Figure 5-3. "Representative structural framing plan on a typical floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2".



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I have never seen a layout of how those beams were arranged but they appear in the Purdue simulation.


NIST NCSTAR 1-1A, Page 96, Figure 5-3. "Representative structural framing plan on a typical floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2".


Leave it to you to find some bullsh# and imply it is relevant.

That does not show the core columns and beams connecting them. It gives some detail about the floor outside the core.

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I took me about 5 minutes to find the layout in the NIST report, which makes me think you never even looked for it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That does not show the core columns and beams connecting them. It gives some detail about the floor outside the core.


Its the framing plan. The framing plan. Inlcuding the core framing of the floor of the core of the building. You said you never saw one. It is in the report you never read. The report also inlcudes distribution of steel and concrete on each floor. But I'm not going to tell you where. I'll give you a hint - you can't use the find function to find it. Good luck!



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Amazing isn't it?




Originally posted by hooper

Its the framing plan. The framing plan. Inlcuding the core framing of the floor of the core of the building.


No it isn't, it is a representation of the floor plan, not the actual floor plan. It doesn't show the details of the 47 core columns and the bracing.


edit on 6/10/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



No it isn't, it is a representation of the floor plan, not the actual floor plan. It doesn't show the details of the 47 core columns and the bracing.


So the thing labeled "framing plan" and shows the framing is not a framing plan? Its a floorplan? So, if its a floorplan please show me the partitions, the doors, the windows, etc.

Good lord, talk about impenetrable denial. You actual post a picture of plan that is labeled "framing plan" and then deny its a framing plan.

Do you even know what a framing plan is and how it differes from a floorplan?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
 

Do you even know what a framing plan is and how it differes from a floorplan?


ROFL

I don't care what it's called. I said I had never seen a layout of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns. I have seen that before. I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD 4 years ago. That diagram, whatever it is called, does not have the core columns and it does not have the beams connecting the columns.

SO WHY DID YOU TELL US ABOUT IT?

Trying to imply stuff that ain't there really is there?


Thanks ANOK

psik



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I said I had never seen a layout of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns.


For the love of God, THOSE ARE THE FLOOR BEAMS IN THE CORE AS SHOWN IN THE FRAMING PLAN!!!



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Most "experts" won't say anything about 9/11 because they have careers to protect.

To speak out in regard to 9/11 instantly brings the stigma of "truther".

A great deal of truth is suppressed by using these types of labels to create fear.

A "scarlet letter" by any other name.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join