Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 64
272
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
It is a reasonable assumption because that is what happens in every natural collapse known to man.


No it is not. But really, is this how you explain the force that ejected all the mass? Lets review our explanations:

Your explanation requires a mysterious unexplained force that somehow ejected the mass out of the building.

My explanation does not require a mysterious unexplained force, it only requires gravity.

And then you ironically claim that my explanation requires a miracle. Until you have explained this mysterious force, it is your explanation that requires a miracle. You are just making up a force, else you have to admit that the collapse would not arrest. Making up forces is not how we do science.




This is why I keep saying that OS'ers need a reproducible experiment in the mode of psikey's. Without that the only recourse is to historic collapses, none of which support the OS. F.E.A. also doesn't support the OS, they all indicate halting, the only F.E.A. that doesn't is the one that we don't have the source code for (the NIST one for WTC7).

EVERYTHING says that this is the reasonable assumption and that the O.S. is the "could happen in principle under very special conditions" scenario.

You need a PHYSICAL test to support your hypothesis, truthers have plenty.


No, I don't need that test. I have no issues with understanding how the collapse progressed.


I think you must recognize that almost anything "could happen in principle under very special conditions".

Time travel "could happen in principle under very special conditions".
An alien"could appear in front of me in principle under very special conditions", just from random quantum interactions.

This is why "could happen in principle under very special conditions" is not a way to do science. You need a PHYSICALLY reproducible experiment or you are just making stuff up.


It seems to me you do not have issues with making stuff up. At least, as long as it either supports a conspiracy theory or disproves the official explanation.

I will repeat it again, a scale model of a full floor was recreated, confirming collapse would initiate from fire. So according to your criteria, you should accept that no explosives were required to initiate collapse.

We indeed do not have a model that replicates the collapse itself. This is for two reason. Firstly, it would be a huge undertaking costing a lot of resources. Secondly, it is because engineers understand the collapse mechanism and do not require such a model. It is only truthers who need such a model to be convinced. No professional engineer is going to invest money and time into convincing truthers. It is also highly likely that such a model will not convince truthers, they will probably claim that the model was rigged or incorrect, or they will just ignore it.




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

1) I said "up to four times", I have seen various figures and it depends on the actual live loading in place at the time of the collapse. I didn't say 4x.

Okay it is a bit of marketing speak, but we are guesstimating.


I think 4 is too high for the columns. 2-3 would be more accurate.


2) If the floor has a safety factor of three that means it can support its own weight three times without failing.

You need to have up to five floors on that assembly to make it fail in the static mode.


Excellent. This is correct.

But since any collapse is a dynamic process, then it would take less take fewer to collapse it.


3) The antennas were supported by the perimeter columns, the lifts by the core. Neither were supported directly by the floor assemblies themselves.

Even if these WERE supported by by the floors that load would be calculated in the safety margin at the start, so you cannot re-invoke them here.


Excellent.


4) We know that the idealized pancaking condition could in no way shape or form have occurred with the tilting antenna


Excellent.


and if it is only the hat truss that allows the floor weight to be overcome, what made the far side collapse?


Columns will buckle/fracture and connections will fail at low tilt angles.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Bazant was never particularly clear how his model related to the real world, but you can picture it that way.


No he was quite clear.

In his model, he assumes that after a 1 story drop, the columns strike each other perfectly, which would give the maximum amount of resistance to stop the falling top stories.

It is a bounding model. Anything else - which includes any percentage of the top falling on floors - would be more prone to collapse progression.


Strictly speaking the difference is in the way the calculation is made rather than what is happen in actual fact:


No, they would both be different.


- For "pancake" or ROOSD theories you are modelling what happens as one floor impacts the next, overcomes the supports of whatever type and then iterate that collision over the whole process.


Yep, Major Tom has the right idea.


In this type of model you have to be sure that you know EXACTLY what is going on with each collision. This is what psikey keeps going on about, it is no good to hand-wave some approximate figure for the floor weights and look at edge on floor assemblies.


It would be best to know, but not critical. If a reasonable estimate is made, and it is found that decreasing the mass per floor by a ridiculous amount still results in a total collapse, and only affects collapse times, then it is reasonably proven that a total collapse would have occurred. Agree?


Any tiny error will multiply and become a gross distortion. So you have to know EXACT weights and EXACT failure points.


No.

Like above, assumptions and upper/lower limit case studies can be done. If varying the weights around only affect the collapse times, but still result in total collapse, then total collapse can be reasonably assumed to be inevitable.


- For a crush down theory you don't need to know precisely every detail, but you do need a way to accurately account for ALL the forces present.


BLGB attempted that


If you miss a force the whole calculation is off because crush down is only considering the net force over the whole process. So resistances, for example, are treated as if they were not successive floors breaking, but as if the it is the density of a medium through which the upper block is falling.


True.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

If you want an exact answer I would say at around 20 floors down or so, depending on how you calculate the increase in the coefficient of restitution.



It's pretty unrealistic to assume that all the concrete was crushed to .1mm during the collapse progression, and to use this as an energy sink.

Therefore the model is crap.

There's actually no evidence or reason to believe that the concrete in the floors would have been crushed much at all DURING the collapse.

IIRC, the terminal velocity of the collapse front was around70 mph. So when all that debis hit the ground, there's a high probabaility that much of the crushing into dust happened at that time.

Is should be indisputable that drywall dust was a large portion of the dust seen during the collapse, since it is also indisputable that it is more easily broken up



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Thank you very much for this thread. I've changed my views on this through the years. Definetly an inside job!



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

12 floors do not impact as a single coherent mass once they have been reduced to rubble.



Wrong.

Water works just fine to crush objects, and it's not exactly joined together




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Darkwing01

12 floors do not impact as a single coherent mass once they have been reduced to rubble.



Wrong.

Water works just fine to crush objects, and it's not exactly joined together



Man, if you took enough of ANYTHING it would crush ANYTHING if you dropped it from high enough. Last I checked water DOES behave somewhat as a coherent mass for all intent and purposes under these conditions. ever heard of surface tension?

Shockingly the surface tension of water is much higher than that of building rubble, but that much building rubble would also crush the car, perfectly correct. Oddly enough though, if you doubled the height from which the water dropped chances are there would be next to no damage to the car (funny thing this dynamic load eh?).

You say a lot but I am not seeing any iterative models.

It's all fine and well to break ONE car, but even you should be able to see where the water goes after it crushes that car: It isn't available to crush anything in that same direction anymore.

This is why I say that pancake/ROOSD models all have the form:
- Heavy things break things when they fall on things.
- *optional (the government would never do such a thing)
- [insert miracle here]
- Therefore WTC fell by gravity alone

What you NEED is an argument of this form:
- Heavy things break things when they fall on them
- Heavy things are more capable of breaking things after having fallen on other things and having broken them
- [reproducible experiment which demonstrates the same in a context somewhat analogous to WTC]
- Therefore WTC happened

Of course the second step is false and is necessarily false by the fundamental laws of physics, so you will never get to step three.

Keep posting your single events experiments as proof of a model which FUNDAMENTALLY is describing multiple iterations as its DEFINING FEATURE. I am glad that it makes you sleep better at night, who needs reality anyway.



Your explanation requires a mysterious unexplained force that somehow ejected the mass out of the building.


Gravity.

Look, here is a video that proves the principle that mass which crushes dynamically is not available to crush further in the same direction after it is broken up and distributed:

edit on 29-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Gravity.

Look, here is a video that proves the principle that mass which crushes dynamically is not available to crush further in the same direction after it is broken up and distributed:


But that is only proof for people who do not understand that water is a liquid and does not pile up, while rubble consisting of concrete and steel does pile up. Ever seen a pile of water laying around?
edit on 29-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

It's all fine and well to break ONE car, but even you should be able to see where the water goes after it crushes that car: It isn't available to crush anything in that same direction anymore.


You're not able to distinguish the problem here.

The water crushes the car is proof of concept - that is, rubble is plenty capable of destroying floors.


What you NEED is an argument of this form:
- Heavy things break things when they fall on them
- Heavy things are more capable of breaking things after having fallen on other things and having broken them
- [reproducible experiment which demonstrates the same in a context somewhat analogous to WTC]
- Therefore WTC happened

Of course the second step is false and is necessarily false by the fundamental laws of physics, so you will never get to step three.


So try this much more rational approach, and #2 becomes true: remove the word "more"
-Heavy things are capable of breaking things after having fallen on other things and having broken them

Even you admit that anything can crush anything given the right circumstances.


I am glad that it makes you sleep better at night, who needs reality anyway.


Certainly not truthers.....



Look, here is a video that proves the principle that mass which crushes dynamically is not available to crush further in the same direction after it is broken up and distributed:


The car was on the ground, and not suspended. Therefore your lame attempt to say that it disproves the concept that rubble can destroy stuff is rejected.

Suspend the car from cables that are engineered to snap when the water is dropped on the car. The car drops. Have another car below that is also suspended. That car will also be destroyed and drop.

Do this 95 times and you will have a better representation of the collapse dynamics, and what kind of destructive power rubble can have



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




You're not able to distinguish the problem here. The water crushes the car is proof of concept - that is, rubble is plenty capable of destroying floors.


If truthers were arguing that dynamic load is irrelevant then maybe you would have a point. Yes, you have proven that heavy things break things when they fall on things. But that is not the concept you are trying to prove.

The pancake theory is an ITERATIVE THEORY and the truther argument is that EVERY ITERATION reduces the capacity of such a system to destroy itself.

IT IS NOT A PROOF OF CONCEPT FOR ANY VARIATION OF A PANCAKE COLLAPSE HYPOTHESIS UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOW TO PROGRESS THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS!!!!!!!!!

This reminds me of how debunkers were the ones who first hit upon Verinage, not realizing that it proves the opposite of what they were trying to prove.




-Heavy things are capable of breaking things after having fallen on other things and having broken them


Yes...

That is ONE iteration. Now do fifty more.

I sincerely hope you aren't implying
-Heavy things are ALWAYS capable of breaking things after having fallen on other things and having broken them

Because that would be the easiest thing in the world to "debunk".



Therefore your lame attempt to say that it disproves the concept that rubble can destroy stuff is rejected.


The only thing lame here is that you are, once again, trying to argue that the truther objection is that heavy things don't break things when they fall on them.

PLB asked where the force comes from that ejects the material, my answer was gravity. Your video demonstrates perfectly how the process works to reduce the mass of falling material that is taking part in the collapse sequence.

At some point you have to realize that there are very few processes that "run away" in the manner you presume in nature. The reason is fairly simple: Such processes would very quickly dominate all other processes in the universe. So claiming that a process indefinitely acretes mass and momentum through an iterative mechanical process is a really hefty claim. Even snowballs don't grow indefinitely. Iterative processes are almost always self damping processes.

edit on 29-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


In order to support the argument that mass decreases you just out of the blue completely make up a force that you can not explain. Your logic is backward. You believe that collapse should have arrested so there must have been a force that arrested it. That is a fallacy called circular reasoning.

In reality, the destroying mass increases with each floor that is destroyed. Sure, after a while the rubble pile could become so big you will end up with a equilibrium where the added mass is as large as the mass that falls to the side. But notice the word "so big". This can only happen when mass inside the pile is pushing other mass inside the pile outside of it.

Your whole idea that collapse would arrests depends on a magical force you are unable to explain. If you call that logical or scientific, then you don't have a clue what either means. A better word to describe your position would be religious or dogmatic.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




In order to support the argument that mass decreases you just out of the blue completely make up a force that you can not explain.


In order to support the argument that the mass INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE PROGRESSION decreases, I only ask you to observe nearly every observable physical phenomenon.

I am not making up the second law of thermodynamics, it is not a force. It is a fundamental principle of reality.



In reality, the destroying mass increases with each floor that is destroyed.


You are confusing your imagination with reality.

If that could happen in reality you would have no difficulty demonstrating it with a physical model.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
In order to support the argument that the mass INVOLVED IN THE COLLAPSE PROGRESSION decreases, I only ask you to observe nearly every observable physical phenomenon.

I am not making up the second law of thermodynamics, it is not a force. It is a fundamental principle of reality.


You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. In no way does it lead to most of the mass being pushed aside. That is a pure fabrication from you, It has no basis in reality.

When I observe nearly every observable physical phenomena, I see things that have a mass fall down, not sideways.



You are confusing your imagination with reality.

If that could happen in reality you would have no difficulty demonstrating it with a physical model.


You seriously think I am going to waste my time because you don't have a clue about physics? Look at verinage demolitions. Do you see most of the mass "ejected"? no!
edit on 30-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




When I observe nearly every observable physical phenomena, I see things that have a mass fall down, not sideways.


And yet you invoke just that action to explain the dust jets and you are looking at a video where gravity is causing material to sideways.

Funny that.

[I don't think I have to explain that it is not gravity itself, but rather the effects of gravity that is causing this, or do I, really at this point I am confused as to what universe OS'ers live in]



You seriously think I am going to waste my time because you don't have a clue about physics? Look at verinage demolitions. Do you see most of the mass "ejected"? no!


And yet, look at the rubble pile of the WTC. Most of the mass WAS ejected.

Verinages ALWAYS have a "jolt", you cannot invoke them to support pancaking, because there was no jolt at the WTC.
edit on 30-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
And yet you invoke just that action to explain the dust jets and you are looking at a video where gravity is causing material to sideways.

Funny that.

[I don't think I have to explain that it is not gravity itself, but rather the effects of gravity that is causing this, or do I, really at this point I am confused as to what universe OS'ers live in]


So now you are claiming that the jets that happen between two floor cause debris that is above these floors to eject. Your claims are getting weirder and weirder as you go further with your fantasy. You do realize that these jets can only happen when a great mass of debris is falling right?


And yet, look at the rubble pile of the WTC. Most of the mass WAS ejected.


No it was not. When we look at the rubble pile, we mostly see perimeter columns outside the footprint. Do you think that the floor trusses and concrete ended up underneath the perimeter columns? Why not, your fantasies has already lost any connection with reality anyhow. In previous threads I posted LIDAR images that show that the rubble pile inside the footprint was up to 70 feet higher than outside it. Look it up.


Verinages ALWAYS have a "jolt", you cannot invoke them to support pancaking, because there was no jolt at the WTC.


So you are now claiming that a jolt is preventing debris from ejecting in a Verinage collapse? So jolts break the second law of thermodynamics according to your reasoning? Sure, add it to the long list of delusional fantasies.
edit on 30-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



So now you are claiming that the jets that happen between two floor cause debris that is above these floors to eject. Your claims are getting weirder and weirder as you go further with your fantasy. You do realize that these jets can only happen when a great mass of debris is falling right?
You're wrong.


Implosion World.

Watch the Southwark Towers demolition. It's on the bottom row, the third one from the left.


edit on 30-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


You do realize that they used explosives? I hope so. So you are saying that in order to arrest the collapse, you need explosives to eject the crushing mass. Sure why not, we will add it to the list.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

The pancake theory is an ITERATIVE THEORY and the truther argument is that EVERY ITERATION reduces the capacity of such a system to destroy itself.



So then your understanding of the collapse dynamics goes something like this:

1-The descending mass hits the 95th floor with 1000Newtons of momentum
2-the destruction of the 95th floor "uses up" 100N of momentum
3-the descending mass hits the 94th floor with 900 N
4-the destruction of the 94th floor "uses up" another 100N of momentum
5 etc.....

Is this correct?

Tell me, what happens to the descending mass during the 12' fall through air between the floors?

What effect does gravity have on the descending mass and its momentum?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 




So then your understanding of the collapse dynamics goes something like this:

1-The descending mass hits the 95th floor with 1000Newtons of momentum
2-the destruction of the 95th floor "uses up" 100N of momentum
3-the descending mass hits the 94th floor with 900 N
4-the destruction of the 94th floor "uses up" another 100N of momentum
5 etc.....

Is this correct?

Tell me, what happens to the descending mass during the 12' fall through air between the floors?

What effect does gravity have on the descending mass and its momentum?


There are a number of things wrong with that.

First you are treating it as a single mass, when your own theory requires that it composed of separate elements. In other words you are conflating a crush-down model with a pancake model. That is why you are having difficulty finding physical analogues to your ideas, crush down is not a theory that has a physical analogue in any real sense. It is at best a description of what happens when a certain outcome is observed. Crush down cannot be used to PROVE pancaking.

In physical reality the maximum load that can be imparted on the lower structure at any given point in time is the maximum load that the upper structure can impart before failing at the collapse interface.

The fact that the TOTAL momentum of the upper structure is irrelevant for this purpose.

The only relevant detail in a pancake theory is the point where mass meets mass and failure occurs, everything else is obfuscation. The rest of the mass does not go away, it is just not present at the point where the pancake is progressing at the time that the pancake is progressing in a form which contributes to the pancake's progression.

Progressive collapses do not gain mass at the interface as they progress.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You seriously think I am going to waste my time because you don't have a clue about physics? Look at verinage demolitions. Do you see most of the mass "ejected"? no!
edit on 30-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Another point that just shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You just grab at excuses and assumption that seem to vaguely fit what you're claiming. If you ever actually looked at the details of what you claim, that we keep pointing out, you would realise that you are missing a lot of information that makes your claims bogus.

Verinage collapse is done by dropping 50% of the building on an already weakened lower structure. 50% PLB, so do some math for me, what percent is 15 of 110?

Also as already pointed out above, and numerous times before by me, the debris WAS ejected as evidence by the post collapse pics. The rubble pile was lower than the top of the lobbies...



Stop ignoring evidence PLB. You lot have already been busted many times now claiming pics were of something they were not, so please don't show that pic you claim is the towers because it ain't. I'm tired of your dishonesty in these discussions, quit trying to deceive. Where are the mods? Knowingly posting false information is against T&C.





new topics

top topics



 
272
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join