Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

page: 26
283
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Not totally understanding the issue of viscoplasticity, but it would seem to me the entire supporting middle columns of the WTC 1 and 2 would need to reach the temperature required for failure...how does this result in iron-rich microspheres?


Take a big magnet go out into your back yard and rub it around on the ground. Look at it. Iron is every where.




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Been awhile here and have been reading and looking at the BS still being put forward by the OS movement....so i will try to put this is simpler terms yet again...and to keep on posting the same equations by Bazant that are based on Assumptions

1) fires and impact acted alone to cause the collapse....(forgetting building 7)

2) there was a full global failure on the floors in both buildings so the upper block accelerated down all at once onto the lower block allowing a top down collapse in a steel structure.....

3) temperatures were high enough to cause the steel to weaken and become plastic (globally) even though the impacts were in different parts of the building and one impact only caught a corner section in the case of the South Tower

4) there was sufficient energy in the upper block to crush the lower block all the way down through the structure...forgetting the fact the the further down the structure it progressed the greater the resistance as the lower in the towers one progresses the more substantial the structure became.

Ok lets look at a virtually accurate rendering of the tower so we can somewhat understand the construction.












key elements to consider here..the cross bracing of the central core....which would result in resisting the very buckling that is presented by Bazant and Greening.....strange it was neglected in their report....also the fact the core is surrounded by the the truss system it would also resist buckling....therefore also requiring energy to collapse the structures....but also neglected in calculations by Bazant.....so yet again Erroneous based math.



now for the simple people out there still spewing their physics....PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.

concrete structure here.....watch what happens in an already weakened building shall we.....top fails....does it tend to plow through the lower structure.
Simple answer ....NO.

so lets look at the lovely things the OS Movement trys to fill people with....look at these top down CONCETE Vérinage collapse method and we will lie to the people that this is how the towers feel onto themselves......Remember you called me out.



is this in reality....is this the Towers method of collapse.....LMAO....sorry for being so cynical....but please grow up the towers and building seven were STEEL structures.......so let analyse the lies the OS trys to promaote shall we.....



What have you learned from this...If you OSer's even bothered to look...because i certainly looked at your stuff as you see i present the same vid you try to promote as truth.....

You see simplify and one starts to see the truth......

So lets look at the integrity of steel in construction shall we....because for some strange reason people only think in conrete terms....with no central core...how falwed can ones analysis be to believe such things.....



Yes, well keep it coming back with the OS LIES......Steel structures behave differently that concrete in collapse situations.....remeber conservation of energy does always aplly wther the collision is Elastic or Inelastic....so Stop lying to the people.....better yet stop lying to yourselves.

now once again the fire was not global.....it did not affect all areas of the structure globally allowing complete failure of entire floors as Bazant would try to have the World believe.



Read the quote in the first part........

Now what else......there is so much wrong with the OS....and to ignore physics just stinks to high heaven and Mister joey Canolli trys to baffle people with BS......WOW....why would you delude yourself into believing what your saying to others.....



Read some points that dispute Bazants Maths

I would copy and paste it here but why not read the entire paper.....

I am told i should use Bazants numbers.....But his math ignored important points and made generalised assumptions.

So your being lied to and your still promoting the lies to the world......Way to go people read the quote in the begining of this Vid.........If one is lied to and then further promotes that same lie.....What is your moral standards of thinking for ones self......

edit on 013131p://f22Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

1) fires and impact acted alone to cause the collapse....(forgetting building 7)


Correct. But don't forget gravity too, eh?


2) there was a full global failure on the floors in both buildings so the upper block accelerated down all at once onto the lower block allowing a top down collapse in a steel structure.....


Correct


3) temperatures were high enough to cause the steel to weaken and become plastic (globally)


Incorrect. Steel temps would have to be on the order o 600-700C to do this. NIST never claims that the heavy columns get this hot. Therefore, you are using a strawman argument and your own personal incredulity.


even though the impacts were in different parts of the building and one impact only caught a corner section in the case of the South Tower


You should actually read the NIST report for once. Theri analysis (which you cannot refute except with again, incredulity) shows that as a result of the off center hit, tower2 weas MUCH closer to failing immediately after the plane impacts than tower 1. Thus it needed much less fire damage to initiate collapse. Which is why it fell first.

4) there was sufficient energy in the upper block to crush the lower block all the way down through the structure..

Incorrect.

The upper part had enough ke to fail the first impacted floor. And once THAT floor is set into motion, its PE is converted into ke to fail the NEXT floor. And so on. There IS a difference between what we are saying. You can ask for help if needed.


.forgetting the fact the the further down the structure it progressed the greater the resistance as the lower in the towers one progresses the more substantial the structure became.


You're forgetting that unlike in a horizontal collision that we all learned about in our physics classes, a vertical collision does something else. Once anything is set into motion - down of course according to gravity - it adds to the destructive force/ke available.

Try to understand the diff, eh?


key elements to consider here..the cross bracing of the central core


An important point to know is that while there was "some" diagonal bracing - namely on the mechanical floors - the tenant floors didn't. And they were simply connected, NOT moment connections. Learn the diff. It's an important reason as to just why the core columns needed an intact floor system and ext column system.


.which would result in resisting the very buckling that is presented by Bazant and Greening


Simply wrong. Bazant assumes buckling of an entire floor's worth of intact columns (and ignores any plane impact damage) occurs over a single story distance, thus not only debunking your objection, but clearly setting the bias towards zero collapse initiation.


now for the simple people out there still spewing their physics....PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.


Spewing is right. For this is exactly what truthers are doing when they repeat this objection.

Nature will always try to get the job done with a minimum of energy input. If there is less energy consumed to go straight down, then that's the path it will take if it would consume MORE energy to deflect the debris to the side.


remeber conservation of energy does always aplly wther the collision is Elastic or Inelastic


Correct.


so Stop lying to the people.....better yet stop lying to yourselves.


An empty assertion if I ever saw one....


now once again the fire was not global.....it did not affect all areas of the structure globally allowing complete failure of entire floors as Bazant would try to have the World believe.


You're severely confused here. Bazant never claimed that the whole building got hot, nor did NIST.

Nor is it necessary for an entire floor to get hot, and again, indeed, neither NIST nor Bazant make this claim.

Looks like straw......


and to ignore physics just stinks to high heaven and Mister joey Canolli trys to baffle people with BS


Since it's self evident that "trutherism" has gone nowhere in the last 10 years, well, then to the rational, it's pretty obvious that there is zero baffling going on.

Just simple facts that you simply cannot understand.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


sorry m8 read the nist report...and all three Bazant reports....the idea is global failure m8....I showed that there was not global failure...just as the NIST report states....by the thermals from the NIST papers.....but you my friend cannot seem to read what is being stated....so i will simplify for you.....the Nist reports shows that there was not global thermals of high emough temps to weaken the steel to provide global failure throughout the floors...not just in one building but in both structures....also in building 7......therefore...how can one ever believe the theory that bazant puts forward saying there was global failure which allowed complete removal of one ENTIRE floor....remembering it would have to be the case for all three steel structures.....but you would believe anything i can see.

then in another thread you show a gif of an elastic collision of two objects on wheels and try to say we do not understand the physics involved.....I think you need some serious assistance in your arguments.....the energy transfers and continue to move in along the same vector as the collision......and i bet you never even bother to look at the videos to gain some kind of understanding did you.......NOPE had thought not.

Now a BS statement by you....less energy consumed to go straight down........OMG....you are approaching idiocy in that statement....so going down through the core requires less energy .....it requies a huge amount of energy

Energy Summary:
The energy balance can be summarised as
Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ
Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

as you might be able to understand .....there was an energy deficit using Bazants own numbers here.....but if you bothered to check the source in the last post you might have found this out......

So stop your patronizing crud with me Joey...because i do understand what i am talking about......and it shows in your own words you have not a clue.....you have stumbled over and over on what you present...and you try to cover your ignorance with condescending patronizing remarks.....YOU Fail.

the the Ke would be transfered as the collapse progresses......you cannot take the smaller mass of the upper block and destroy the larger mass of the lower block.....Simple FACT.

now we are talking about the core...there was diagonal bracing up the entire core structure...not just on the mechanical floors.....so you had better go look again at the elevation plans for the towers...it might help you to stop spreading more lies...

now we are not talking about the entire floor getting hot in Bazants case....try to listen if you could please....we are talking about for Bazants model to work.....the Entire floor would have to basically lost all support...to reach his 2.105Gj

If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational
acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate
that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its
mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by
Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength
within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this
analysis.

you see his numbers neglect the fact that a good percentage of the columns would be intact.....that is why i used the NIST report which works against Bazants own reasoning.....but you did not observe what i was stating did you?...Typical.

it is about loss of energy...the transfer of energy into the lower structure and the transfer of energy used in the destruction of the upper block as well as the lower but.....I am not talking about the simple physics on a horizontal plain which you are referring too......but you like to use in a GIF showing an elastic collision on your HORIZONTAL plain.....strange that is make up your mind shall you.

so maybe when your own ignorance stops showing through and you learn not to be so patronizing you might be able to sound intelligent enough to put valid points across...... you did not counter anything i presented with fact...you only ranted.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Kudos to the Op for his work and research into this important topic!

If Ron Paul would somehow overcome the bias, MSM, and otherwise to become President, do think there's a chance that he could have a new investigation started?
edit on 29-12-2011 by freedom12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Man.

OP spent countless selfless hours putting this together, and I doubt was motivated by salary or grant consisting of $600,000...
I'm sold by your investigation/evidence presented. Thanks.

The only peace left in this puzzle seems just a rope to string these bastards up with.

Then the burden of dirty hands gets recycled...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
yet another group has joined the 911 for truth - Hollywood no less:
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Incorrect. Steel temps would have to be on the order o 600-700C to do this. NIST never claims that the heavy columns get this hot. Therefore, you are using a strawman argument and your own personal incredulity.



This is the minimum temperature it would have to reach.

Taken directly from wikipedia, let's be official about this ...

Open air burning temperature of jet fuel ...


260-315°C (500-599°F)




The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress.[6] In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used,[7] or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300F[8] (530-810C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature.


Which simply states, kerosine can't EVER reach the critical temperature of construction steel. Because, basically, kerosine like all other fuel needs open access to air to burn. Without airflow, kerosine, like all other fuel ... will cease to burn ... hot or not. And of course, we know that all construction steel is required to have some sort of fireproofing. Kerosine doesn't even come close, to the lowest temperature requirement, in Japan, of 400 degrees. But theoretically could ... all things taken into consideration.



The tube frame design using steel core and perimeter columns protected with sprayed-on fire resistant material created a relatively lightweight structure that would sway more in response to the wind


We can be extremely generous, and say ... ok, ok ... the builders of World Trade Center, didn't keep to the building codes and the building was undermined. (HEY! wait a minute, doesn't that mean that the guy who had these built is to blame, and is to pay for damages????), but heck ... even a small amount of fire resistant, is still a fire resistant. And kerosin at 300 degrees C, is still far from the Japan lowest construction requirement of 400 Degrees, and way way way below the 500 degrees required in North America and Europe. And when we are talking about these temperatures, we are talking about the absolute lowest acceptable temperature at where the steel is not to lose it's capability of carrying it's load.

So, all you NIST supporters and other Bush BS supporters. Go play with yourselves, because this isn't open for discussion here ... unless, you want to state openly that the builders of the world trade centers are to blame, for undercutting the job. In which case, the crime of the US government is double ... they didn't just "allow" an attack to happen ... they blamed their own undercut job, and failures on others and took the lives of thousands of innocent children as a result ...

Now, that would be even more sinister than what we, those who demand investigations ... are stating.

edit on 2/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Bumping this important thread.

Line 2 or do good 9/11 posts need a line 2?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom12
 



If Ron Paul would somehow overcome the bias, MSM, and otherwise to become President, do think there's a chance that he could have a new investigation started?
I don't know about that, but he would definitely take such a request much more seriously than Obama, Romney, Gingrich, or any of those puppets. If enough of the people requested one, I'm sure he would listen, because he would be there to serve the people rather than corporations and special interests.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 
It's obvious that the only candidate running this year who would dare to take on the topic of the 9/11 crime is Dr. Paul. His speech last night in NH after the second place finish was brilliant. Millions of people who've never heard him, heard him last night, and I was thrilled. The time is right for what he has to say about the 'status quo', the ones who stand to lose so much if 9/11 is ever investigated. RP represents so much trouble for tptb, I fear for his safety.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Only in America, where unfettered and unregulated capitalism has just brought an end to your hegemony and plunged the nation into an economic spiral it will probably never recover from, could a significant number of voters decide that what is needed is more unfettered capitalism and less regulation.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeIn your case I'd advise to keep silent and be thought a fool, because when you speak, you remove all doubt. Our 'unfettered' system is corrupt due to outside influence, and overregulation. The 'system' is fine, it's the politicians that need changed.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dillweed
 


That's not really an answer is it? Just an assertion. I'm sure you hope it's the case, and that things are salvageable by a good dose of, er, the same stuff that got you in trouble in the first place. But really that's just wishful thinking as retailed to you by people who profit from the status quo.

Still, whatever helps you sleep at night.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Correct. But don't forget gravity too, eh?

Correct

Incorrect. Steel temps would have to be on the order o 600-700C to do this. NIST never claims that the heavy columns get this hot. Therefore, you are using a strawman argument and your own personal incredulity.

Just simple facts that you simply cannot understand.



Since the fuel in question, is burning in open air and not going out of the combustion engine of the jet. It will burn at


Open air burning temperatures 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)[7]


But since the color of the fires show, that the fire is actually oxygen starved, it is at lower of these temperatures.



the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300F[8] (530-810C).


Even if we are generous, and really wanna help you out here ... the fires don't even get to the 50% rate of the heat resistance, by building code. And that is assuming, there is no fire resistance added to it. This is just a general strength of construction steel.

And the collapse theory that is being used, as pointed out by others ... applies to completely different bulding types. These buildings are made of concrete, and are what is called "unit structure". Each floor wall, is a unit, that then is transported to the building site and put up. They are not steel structures. In some of these, there is a slight steel frame, but they are primarily build with concrete columns.

These types of buildings, you can collapse in this manner.

And as pointed out by countless posts, the collapse defies basic physics.

Besides, the first reports from Building 7, were that it was a controlled demolition. And it was only changed, after the "owner" would have been liable for damages.

Kinda gives a clear motive, for controlled demolition and a clear motive to lie about it.
edit on 11/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 11/1/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeYou have a much higher opinion of your opinion than I do. If the whole world thought like you, we'd really be screwed.
 



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by TrickoftheShadeYou have a much higher opinion of your opinion than I do. If the whole world thought like you, we'd really be screwed.
 




Again, that's not really a reasoned response, is it? More just an ad hominem attack. Which leads me to think that perhaps you don't actually have a decent argument for why I'm wrong.

Face it, notions that Ron Paul and his big broom of deregulation will sweep away the rot are just pie in the sky, the equivalent of a thumb in the mouth comforter for economic dullards. Not least because letting people do exactly what they want is what got you to doomsday in the first place.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 

bump for later reading



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


You say because the fires were starved of oxygen




and the only thing that was burning was fuel so nothing else in those offices could burn



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibajaba
yet another group has joined the 911 for truth - Hollywood no less:
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org...


If you add up the IQ of the six in the pictures it might get to double figures!!





new topics




 
283
<< 23  24  25   >>

log in

join