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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 24
27
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





They said the pile was not as big as they expected.


The height of the debris pile was reported as 5 stories high.
Plus there were several floors including a mall, below ground level.

Lest we forget it also had a 65 foot high public lobby before higher ‘floors’ even began.

Thats a lot of room for debris.




posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

No matter what it displays an obvious lack of scientific curiosity. For whatever reason. The most amazing thing about 9/11 is how the top of the south tower tilted 22+ degrees in a couple of second 50 minutes after the building stopped vibrating from the plane impact. That required the bottom of the upper broken portion to move horizontally 20 feet and yet the plane impact only moved the building 15 inches.

psik


If you ACTUALLY watch the videos psikey you can see what happens when the collapse starts watch .

The reason it rotates is the bulk of the damage is at the impact side obviously and because the sides and elevation at the opposite side provide resistance it rotates

Have you ever played JENGA take some of the blocks away half way up on one side what happens to the blocks above (scientific curiosity
) You have shown that you get lots of things WRONG take your washer paper tube model for example!


Tilting and rotating are not the same thing. The bottom of the upper block moved SIDEWAYS. Rotating would mean all of the columns would have to break for the bottom to move sideways. What could do that when the impact of the plane only deflected the building 15 inches.

People have to NOT SEE things in order to believe the nonsense they want to believe. Or lie about.





The distribution of mass alone should have told physicists this was impossible so now our physicists need to explain why they were not even asking certain questions nine years ago. Physics is never going to change and the videos will never go away. Jenga blocks are not damaged in a collapse. They can be reused. They do not absorb energy from the collapse. The comparison is IDIOTIC. The paper loops in my model absorb energy.



psik



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




The bottom of the upper block moved SIDEWAYS. Rotating would mean all of the columns would have to break for the bottom to move sideways.


No the way I see it is that the corner collapsed setting off the chain reaction.
That's not the same as the bottom moving sideways.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




The bottom of the upper block moved SIDEWAYS. Rotating would mean all of the columns would have to break for the bottom to move sideways.
No the way I see it is that the corner collapsed setting off the chain reaction.
That's not the same as the bottom moving sideways.


I provided videos.

You can NOT SEE what you choose.

The NIST even contradicts itself on the subject.


Most unfortunately NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in the NIST Final Report we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south. …. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, in another Section of the NIST Report, called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. …. Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees AS it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees BEFORE it began to fall.”

www.physforum.com...

psik



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 




They said the pile was not as big as they expected.


The height of the debris pile was reported as 5 stories high.
Plus there were several floors including a mall, below ground level.

Lest we forget it also had a 65 foot high public lobby before higher ‘floors’ even began.

Thats a lot of room for debris.


Hmmmmmm 5 stories, 5 floors? LOL 110 floors all crushed down to 65 ft?

If all the floors were crushed to that height you still have a serious physics problem with the collapses. What crushed all those floors? Don't forget to address the equal opposite reaction law in your answer. The floors can not crush themselves. If they could then demonstrate it, use concrete slabs, and see if you can make them all crush themselves. I'll bet you can't do it.


edit on 8/5/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Hmmmmmm 5 stories, 5 floors? LOL 110 floors all crushed down to 65 ft?

5 floors plus the lower levels.




If all the floors were crushed to that height you still have a serious physics problem with the collapses. What crushed all those floors?

You have demonstrated the inability to understand simple physics when they were explained time and time again. What’s the point in going down the same road?




Don't forget to address the equal opposite reaction law in your answer. The floors can not crush themselves. If they could then demonstrate it, use concrete slabs, and see if you can make them all crush themselves.


It’s so sad that you are stuck in that one frame of mind. You are like a dog chasing its own tail. It never goes anywhere. Maybe one day you will get to go on a field trip to a construction site. I’m sure any of the men there will be able to show you in concrete terms.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


22,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot disintegrate 500,000(the weight of each tower) tons of concrete and mild steel including building 7. It just doesn't happen that way.
And the shock wave impact or any damage from the planes entry did nothing to the result of the collapse. If that was the case the Japanese would have won the pacific with there Kamikaze tactics.


I suggest you truly inform yourself with construction/design and structural/civil engineering knowledge. Once you do. You'll understand.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by samkent
 


22,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot disintegrate 500,000(the weight of each tower) tons of concrete and mild steel including building 7. It just doesn't happen that way.
And the shock wave impact or any damage from the planes entry did nothing to the result of the collapse. If that was the case the Japanese would have won the pacific with there Kamikaze tactics.


What the hell is this crap?

Where did you get 22,000 gallons? It was 10,000 gal. in each plane. Somebody said 16,000 was the max the planes could hold. TEN YEARS and people don't get basic stuff correct.

Most of the kamikazes missed their targets so what does that have to do with anything?

psik



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by samkent
 


22,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot disintegrate 500,000(the weight of each tower) tons of concrete and mild steel including building 7. It just doesn't happen that way.
And the shock wave impact or any damage from the planes entry did nothing to the result of the collapse. If that was the case the Japanese would have won the pacific with there Kamikaze tactics.


I suggest you truly inform yourself with construction/design and structural/civil engineering knowledge. Once you do. You'll understand.




Who said it did? A truther? Sounds like it. No that is not what happened. Please get up to speed. A fast moving plane impacted a building. The impact caused some serious damage to a section of the structure. The sections affected were then doused with jet fuel and set alight. The jet fuel started fires that continued to degrade the damaged structure, until structural failure was at hand. It was not one thing. It was the structure itself, the impact of the 767 itself, and the severe fires resulting from impact that caused the structure to collapse.

The Kamikaze dive bombers managed to sin many aircraft. They managed to pierce the decks and sides of ships, and even managed to destroy them. The aircraft also were topped off with fuel and loaded with explosives and or aerial bombs, to maximize destruction. The simple shock of the impact, depending on location of impact, was capable of knocking out important equipment, structural stability, engines, etc. Some ships only survived from tireless efforts by damage control parties, while some survived by sheer dumb luck. Others were not so fortunate and sunk, or detonated in a shower of shrapnel.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I will gladly, and easily prove the object is accelerating faster than gravity by showing the change in velocity
from two distinct points beyond the dust cloud.

Once I get home, I'll scale the width of the tower and show all of my work. I'll even try to find a clearer video.


have you gotten home yet? We are still waiting for all of your work....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It just occurred to me last night that the TRUTH MOVEMENT should adopt the Vulcan salute as a symbol.

The fingers in two pairs would represent the twin towers and the thumb building 7. I always thought science was supposed to be a truth movement and Spock was the science officer.

9/11 is most definitely a travesty of science. But after almost ten years people are still getting simple stuff wrong, like the amount of fuel. Where is all of this critical thinking we hear about?

www.youtube.com...

psik
edit on 24-8-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It just occurred to me last night that the TRUTH MOVEMENT should adopt the Vulcan salute as a symbol.


A very good suggestion, because both the "truth" movement and Star Trek are not based in any reality, they are just a sci-fi fantasy



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It just occurred to me last night that the TRUTH MOVEMENT should adopt the Vulcan salute as a symbol.


A very good suggestion, because both the "truth" movement and Star Trek are not based in any reality, they are just a sci-fi fantasy


Actually this reflects a change in American society since the 60s. Science Fiction and Fantasy were regarded as two different areas in the 60s. In fact when Star Wars came out there was a bit of a stink about it not being science fiction. But since then many people regard them as the same but some say that science fiction has been DUMBED DOWN.

This society has become more media saturated since the 60s. I think there has been an ongoing tendency to brainwash people into NOT THINKING even though we keep hearing, "Critical Thinking", "Critical Thinking", "Critical Thinking".

www.youtube.com...

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 20th century.

It is really funny for politicians to talk about STEM. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

After TEN YEARS we don't even have a table specifying the tons of steel on every level.


9/11 is a pretty minor issue actually. 42 years after the Moon landing and our economists can't talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles and say how much we lose on the depreciation of that junk every year. I tried to get a PhD economist to explain how a piston engine worked once. He couldn't do it. If a man does not understand enough physics to explain why it is ridiculous to think an airliner could destroy a skyscraper in two hours I sure as hell don't care what he thinks of any automobile. DUH, what's a cam shaft?


psik



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 20th century.

Piltdown man was an all and out hoax. The persons supposedly seeking the "truth" about 9/11 are engaged in a completely different form of make believe. They purport to be vessels of understanding with regard to physics, when in fact, they are simply throwing around science terms in order to sound like experts.

It is really funny for politicians to talk about STEM. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

No its not.

After TEN YEARS we don't even have a table specifying the tons of steel on every level.

Yeah we do, its in the NIST report. Read it.

9/11 is a pretty minor issue actually.

No its not. It involved the murder of thousands of innocent persons on American soil. It is not a minor issue.

42 years after the Moon landing and our economists can't talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles and say how much we lose on the depreciation of that junk every year.

Uh, yes they can. I don't know about "planned obsolescence" but anyone can talk to you about marketing and business models that will determine the charateristics of any given service or product. You have to understand marketing, not engineering.

I tried to get a PhD economist to explain how a piston engine worked once.

Why? Is this the same way you learned physics?

He couldn't do it.

I am simply aghast that an economist didn't know anything about mechanical engineering. The big question is why would you ever assume that an economist would understand?

If a man does not understand enough physics to explain why it is ridiculous to think an airliner could destroy a skyscraper in two hours I sure as hell don't care what he thinks of any automobile.

And if a man does understand physics and thinks it is not ridiculous is the man allowed to then sneer at your apparent ingnorance?

DUH, what's a cam shaft?

That coming from a guy that thinks washers and paper loops and broomhandles are a model of a building.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread716387/pg24#pid12198412]post by
I am simply aghast that an economist didn't know anything about mechanical engineering. The big question is why would you ever assume that an economist would understand?


Actually I am surprised he could drive. He did own a car.

He said nothing when I pointed out that the economics profession had its algebra wrong.

www.spectacle.org...

That was written before 9/11. 12 years and the algebra is still wrong.

Apparently you can type. Such a pity that is all you can do.

psik



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Glad to see you comparing ships to skyscrapers... Kinda shows the "potential". Sheeptards at work...



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread716387/pg24#pid12198412]post by
I am simply aghast that an economist didn't know anything about mechanical engineering. The big question is why would you ever assume that an economist would understand?


Actually I am surprised he could drive. He did own a car.

He said nothing when I pointed out that the economics profession had its algebra wrong.

www.spectacle.org...

That was written before 9/11. 12 years and the algebra is still wrong.

Apparently you can type. Such a pity that is all you can do.

psik


Wow. Do you really think that stuff makes sense? I have seen very few papers on economics that quote Proverbs. And of course you do realize there is a substantial economic difference between a Capital Good and a Durable Consumer Good, correct? Durable consumer goods are simply consumed. They do not produce wealth in their consumption. That is why economist don't care what the item is, its placement in one category or another is determined not by physical construct but by use. My car is consumed, the same car owned by Enterprise depreciates as its ability to produce wealth over time decreases.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And of course you do realize there is a substantial economic difference between a Capital Good and a Durable Consumer Good, correct?


What is the PHYSICAL difference between a car owned by Hertz or Avis and the same make and model car owned by a consumer? Do the Laws of Physics work differently for the different machines? Does one depreciate and one not? Tell a bank that gives car loans that automobiles owned by consumers do not depreciate.

psik



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juanxlink
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Glad to see you comparing ships to skyscrapers... Kinda shows the "potential". Sheeptards at work...


Hey. I'm just using your logic. You say aluminum aircraft cant penetrate steel columns, I point out ice punctured steel. You dont like it? Then tell your fellow truthers to stop making such stupid remarks. Otherwise I will be more than happy to just mimic truthers.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join