It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Simple experiment involving wrecking ball and aviation fuel to prove if 9/11 is true or false

page: 2
6
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 03:28 PM

ANOK, where is the thread where you lay out your physics claims with equations and such?
edit on 6/26/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: WHOOPS wrong username!

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:51 PM

What equations? All you need is the laws of motion to understand. Equations are only needed to understand the details. You can make anything work with equations, just like computer models, it all depends on the figures you use and the assumptions you make.

The laws of motion do not change.

Where is your explanation of the collapses using the known laws of motion?

posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

You can make anything work with equations

Really? I think you might want to look into that one a bit more closely.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:50 AM

Well, since you always bang on about "simple physics, mate", I figured you had probably put this argument in a rigorous mathematical form that would demonstrate understanding of physics. But I guess I was wrong. The most math you like to use is "95 < 15 therefore it couldn't happen."

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:16 AM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Well, since you always bang on about "simple physics, mate", I figured you had probably put this argument in a rigorous mathematical form that would demonstrate understanding of physics. But I guess I was wrong. The most math you like to use is "95 < 15 therefore it couldn't happen."

You insist on maths when none are necessary.

If you can't understand how the laws of motion work without maths then I feel sorry for you.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:20 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

You can make anything work with equations

Really? I think you might want to look into that one a bit more closely.

The output is dependent on the input. If you want an equation to support the collapse of the towers simply leave out the loss of Ke to other energy such as sound, deformation, friction, ejection of debris, heat, etc. Same thing with a computer simulation.

See how easy that is?

edit on 6/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:53 AM

The building was designed to hold its weight plus a safety factor that would allow the building to hold its own weight many times over.

It's clear you have no background in engineering.

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:34 AM

Mathematics is the language of science, ANOK. If you refuse to state your analysis in mathematical terms, I suspect that is because you can't. I'm not sure how you can understand the physics of this situation without being able to express it mathematically.

I'm tired of the handwaving and bald assertions that Newton's laws prove it couldn't have happened... Let's get specific. You keep making these claims about physics. You could create a thread where you lay it out in detail!

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:14 PM
[

Originally posted by Seventh
I just tried a house of cards collapse, and indeed you were correct, but, there were 2 significant factors missing...

1). The cards were not reduced to dust as they fell.

That is because cards are more pliable then cement and metal.
Not really an issue that has any significant impact on why it fell straight down.

Originally posted by Seventh
2). 80% of the cards were not ejected outside of the house of cards foot print.

I guess I am missing the question here.
The cards will not fall into an exact pile in the exact shape of the building footprint, they will spread out a slight bit further then the original base of the structure. The same thing happened with the towers, the only difference being that your house of cards only fell a couple of feet were the towers fell over 1300 feet. Of course when something falls from a greater distance its gong to spread its debris over a larger footprint then something that only fell a foot or two.

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:31 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
The building was designed to hold its weight plus a safety factor that would allow the building to hold its own weight many times over. So sorry but there was no reason at all the building would completely collapse from its own weight. The laws of motion tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.

There is a difference between holding static weight and having weight with potential energy behind it dropped down on that structure. Obviously if you took off the upper 1/3 of the building and set it gently down on the lower 2/3 of the building it wouldn’t have any issue holding that weight, same as it always did; however, if you took that weight up 20 feet and dropped it on the bottom, it would have enough potential energy to cause the lower levels to crumble.
So…
The issue is not the weight that could be held, it’s the many factors greater of potential energy acting in a downward direction on the lower structure. As each story collapsed the weight would increase and it would drop again collapsing the next, and so on…

Originally posted by ANOK
Try this, take two slabs of concrete and smash them together, take the rubble and drop it all on another slab of concrete. Then come back and tell us how the rubble did not crush the concrete slab. Simple physics.

I tire of folks from the truth movement using solid bricks as a comparison to the towers. The towers were not solid bricks, but were a skeleton work of truss structures, and most of the buildings mass was empty area (hence the fact that they were able to fit offices in them).

Originally posted by ANOK
Forget about your analogies, and please try to explain using the laws of motion how you think it could happen. A hint, the 3rd law is the one that is relevant. Until you do your anomalies will always fail to explain your point.

So you honestly think that if you removed the second story of a building, hoisted it say 20 feet in the air above the bottom half the building, and let it drop, the first story would not be pulverized by the weight of the second story despite its having held that weight previously?

You’re forgetting that when all that weight accelerates as it drops it gains a tremendous amount of force behind it that dwarfs the weight of the object when standing static. When you apply the amount of force that the upper stories of that building were exerting as they dropped onto the lower stories, I doubt there is a structure built by man that could withstand it.

Originally posted by ANOK
The laws of motion tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.

It didn't have to it, only had to smash the 95th floor. Then you add the 95th floors weight as it drops another 10-13 feet on the 94th story, smashing it, then add the 95th & 94th weight as it drops another 10-13 feet and smashes the 93rd story, adding the weight of the 95th,94th, and 93rd floors… And so on, and so on, until you hit ground level.
edit on 6/28/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 11:59 PM

Originally posted by wavemaker
Be careful with this logic. The government defenders will be here in no time calling you stupid for thinking of that idea. They will insult you so that you will not try to discuss topic again.

And if you succeed in getting it scheduled, how do you know government agents won't plant some thermite in the columns overnight? In fact, how do you know they wouldn't be running the entire show?

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:18 AM

Originally posted by filosophia

That is one possibility, to just light the office equipment on fire since according to the official story that is what brought the building down, not just the airplane. However, to more accurately recreate the event a wrecking ball is much more practical to use and mimics the effects of an airplane.

What's funny is the people who support the government story will demand the wrecking ball even though the official story basically says office equipment fire alone caused the collapse.

No, that is not what the "official story" says at all. Maybe you should reaad the NIST report.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

What equations? All you need is the laws of motion to understand. Equations are only needed to understand the details. You can make anything work with equations, just like computer models, it all depends on the figures you use and the assumptions you make.

The laws of motion do not change.

Where is your explanation of the collapses using the known laws of motion?

You still don't understand the problem with modeling/scaling, do you?

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343

You still don't understand the problem with modeling/scaling, do you?

I don't understand what you're talking about. I understand the problems with modeling and scaling quite well thanks.

What has modeling to do with the laws of motion? The known laws that you keep ignoring.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by FDNY343

You still don't understand the problem with modeling/scaling, do you?

I don't understand what you're talking about. I understand the problems with modeling and scaling quite well thanks.

What has modeling to do with the laws of motion? The known laws that you keep ignoring.

"Try this, take two slabs of concrete and smash them together, take the rubble and drop it all on another slab of concrete. Then come back and tell us how the rubble did not crush the concrete slab. Simple physics."

Remember that? Yeah, now, please explain the problem with this proposed model.

(I'll give you a hint. The WTC was not solid concrete blocks. )

Will you be showing your math anytime soon?

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:15 AM

(I'll give you a hint. The WTC was not solid concrete blocks. )

Lemme guess, it was 90% air right? So you think the air was crushing the concrete now along with causing focused ejection jets?

So what was the main component of the overall weight of the building then. Psikey? You there?

It doesn't matter whether you say steel or concrete, the problem stays the same. You can't claim that the falling of the material is causing the lower structure to fail AND that it is causing the crushing. To be crushed the material needs to be resisting the collapse, otherwise it can't be crushed.

If I am not mistaken the concrete in WTC was reinforced as well, which just makes the OS'ers story even more ludicrous.

Is there anything that a falling building cannot do?

All these questions can be laid to rest with a simple experiment, you don't have to worry about scaling since you can pick any material or setup you like. Just reproduce the main claims of Bazant in a physical model and we can all go home.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: s

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343
Remember that? Yeah, now, please explain the problem with this proposed model.

(I'll give you a hint. The WTC was not solid concrete blocks. )

Will you be showing your math anytime soon?

Oh dear, I was trying to show you how the core, and what held up the floors, makes NO difference to the physics of the collapsing floors. The laws of motion apply regardless of what was falling.

I didn't say the towers were solid blocks of concrete, I was talking about the solid slabs of concrete that made up the floors, that you claim pancaked themselves into the ground at near free-fall speed.

You OSers main problem is your reading comprehension, you don't even seem to understand what the OS claims half the time. Either that or you are purposely playing ignorant in order to dismiss a relevant point.

How many more times why do you need maths? You don't even understand the basic physics being described to you and you ask for maths? If you knew what you were talking about you would know maths is not needed to explain basic physics. Maths, just like computer sims, can say anything you want it to depending on the input, and if you input what you think happened (block of floors falling on one floor) your maths will favour complete collapse, but will be incorrect.

edit on 7/2/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:30 PM

Maths, just like computer sims, can say anything you want it to depending on the input

The reason we use math in physics is because math can accurately predict certain physical behaviour once input parameters have been established.

What the OS'ers are doing though is something else, they want to establish the input parameters on the math, which is completely bonkers.

To put it in context: It would be like solving the equation to establish that the Zarchonians didn't need to travel at light speed to reach earth from planet Zarchon if they left after there Mxszido festival ended to get here before the Bhuddists celebrate Easter. Yes you can prove that with math, and it would technically be true too, for any distance that the Zarchonians needed to travel! Extraordinary how powerful the discipline is.

Do you see the problem?

This is how math was used to prove the OS, if you can't see that you're blind. This is what happens when you abandon empiricism for dogmatic nationalism.
edit on 2-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: complete

posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Darkwing01
The reason we use math in physics is because math can accurately predict certain physical behaviour once input parameters have been established.

That is the thing, we don't have the input parameters to even do any maths, and neither do the OSers.

We don't know the weight distribution of the steel, we don't know what the safety factors were at each level. How can they claim it was potential energy when they don't have the information to even know how much potential energy the top section would have if it become suddenly detached and able to fall. If it was a gradual collapse, with no actual drop through air with no resistance, the potential energy would be pretty low. If it did drop through air with no resistance then they need to explain how that was possible in the first place.

OSers think it was the potential energy when they don't even have enough information to figure out the potential energy.

I can guarantee though that if we did have complete information, and the maths were done correctly, it would favour an arrest of the collapse. In fact those maths would have had to have been done when the buildings were designed, it is part of the design process. But we don't need maths to prove something that has been known since Sir Isaac Newton published the 3 laws of motion. The OSers simply say anything to avoid having to address the laws of motion, and how (or because) they prove the collapses are impossible from gravity alone.

The OSers excuses are so full of holes, and change so often, it's comical.

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:34 PM

what was the safety factor?

new topics

top topics

6