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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 54
34
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Let's get down to it then- you all keep suggesting that the physics of a complete collapse is impossible without some sort of "outside energy" assisting in it's initiation and progression. But since no evidence has been found of this "outside energy" :

What do you believe the outside energy was and how did it assist in the collapse?


No I am not talking about an outside energy. I am saying the lower 90 levels could not be crushed down from above in less than 18 seconds.

Why hasn't the physics profession and engineering schools told us how much energy would be required to collapse each level from above? But then how could they do that if they do not even know the amount of steel on each level AND ARE NOT ASKING?

psik




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Let's get down to it then- you all keep suggesting that the physics of a complete collapse is impossible without some sort of "outside energy" assisting in it's initiation and progression. But since no evidence has been found of this "outside energy" :

What do you believe the outside energy was and how did it assist in the collapse?


No I am not talking about an outside energy. I am saying the lower 90 levels could not be crushed down from above in less than 18 seconds.

Why hasn't the physics profession and engineering schools told us how much energy would be required to collapse each level from above? But then how could they do that if they do not even know the amount of steel on each level AND ARE NOT ASKING?

psik



If you're asserting that the bottom levels of the towers could not have been crushed down by the downward force of the collapsing floors from above, then you are insinuating an alternative source of energy brought down those buildings.

FACT: The towers completely collapsed.

So don't say it couldn't have happened. It DID happen. And if you don't think it was due to the high speed impact of jet aeroplanes, the huge ensuing fires that were left to burn, and subsequent weakening of the steel columns, then you are MOST CERTAINLY talking about some other "outside energy".

So what was it? And what role did it play in the speed of the collapse?

BTW- the answers to your other questions may be found in the beginning parts of this thread.
edit on 28-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Why hasn't the physics profession and engineering schools told us how much energy would be required to collapse each level from above?

Because its pointless? Yeah, that's it - its pointless.

But then how could they do that if they do not even know the amount of steel on each level AND ARE NOT ASKING?

Well, probably if they felt that there was a significant reason to know, they would probably just sit down with the NIST report and figure it out.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Let's get down to it then- you all keep suggesting that the physics of a complete collapse is impossible without some sort of "outside energy" assisting in it's initiation and progression. But since no evidence has been found of this "outside energy" :

What do you believe the outside energy was and how did it assist in the collapse?


No I am not talking about an outside energy. I am saying the lower 90 levels could not be crushed down from above in less than 18 seconds.

Why hasn't the physics profession and engineering schools told us how much energy would be required to collapse each level from above? But then how could they do that if they do not even know the amount of steel on each level AND ARE NOT ASKING?

psik


Your question has been answered ad-naseum by Zdeněk P. Bažant's contribution to the NIST report.


Just because you don't like or understand the conclusions by no means invalidates the math.


As a wise person once said, we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts.


What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

Here is the same conversation in a different thread explaining the mechanism in detail...

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Knock yourself out.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
If you're asserting that the bottom levels of the towers could not have been crushed down by the downward force of the collapsing floors from above, then you are insinuating an alternative source of energy brought down those buildings.

FACT: The towers completely collapsed.


The towers were completely destroyed from the top down.

Now if the mass above the impact zone could crush the mass below then it should not be that difficult to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon and there is certainly no reason to not know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

Otherwise people are just BELIEVING in the 9/11 Religion.

I am not interested in speculating about the energy sources involved in destroying the supports below the impact zones. Since I haven't been to New York since years before 9/11 I have no physical evidence. Check with Steven Jones if you want. There is no point in my repeating someone else's second hand information.

But if you can't build a model that can completely collapse why should I care what you say?

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The towers were completely destroyed from the top down.

Define 'destroyed".

Now if the mass above the impact zone could crush the mass below then it should not be that difficult to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon and there is certainly no reason to not know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

Define "crush".

Otherwise people are just BELIEVING in the 9/11 Religion.

Otherwise what?

I am not interested in speculating about the energy sources involved in destroying the supports below the impact zones.

Sure you are.

Since I haven't been to New York since years before 9/11 I have no physical evidence.

Evidence of waht?

Check with Steven Jones if you want.

Rather not. Besides, I think he's moved on. Milked this one for all its worth.

There is no point in my repeating someone else's second hand information.

Any information would be nice. So far all we have is your constant statment with regard to your limited understanding of what you think is "physics".

But if you can't build a model that can completely collapse why should I care what you say?

Get out your Jenga blocks....



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The towers were completely destroyed from the top down.

Define 'destroyed".

Now if the mass above the impact zone could crush the mass below then it should not be that difficult to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon and there is certainly no reason to not know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

Define "crush".


Get a dictionary. Everybody is supposed to be brainwashed with "COLLAPSED".

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The towers were completely destroyed from the top down.

Define 'destroyed".

Now if the mass above the impact zone could crush the mass below then it should not be that difficult to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon and there is certainly no reason to not know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

Define "crush".


Get a dictionary. Everybody is supposed to be brainwashed with "COLLAPSED".

No, I want YOUR definition. I want you to put in writing what you think happened. Don't go hiding behind words, tell us what you think destroyed and crush means. Do you think the building was turned to talcum powder? Pulverized?

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
If you're asserting that the bottom levels of the towers could not have been crushed down by the downward force of the collapsing floors from above, then you are insinuating an alternative source of energy brought down those buildings.

FACT: The towers completely collapsed.


The towers were completely destroyed from the top down.

Now if the mass above the impact zone could crush the mass below then it should not be that difficult to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon and there is certainly no reason to not know the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.


If it's not that difficult then you do it. (note: broom sticks and washers are not proper models of collapsing towers)




I am not interested in speculating about the energy sources involved in destroying the supports below the impact zones. Since I haven't been to New York since years before 9/11 I have no physical evidence. Check with Steven Jones if you want. There is no point in my repeating someone else's second hand information.


Of course you're not interested. Why would you be? Come on truther. Take the skirt off and step up to the plate. What collapsed the towers? And I won't even make you build me a model to prove it. I swear.


But if you can't build a model that can completely collapse why should I care what you say?

psik


So recreate 9/11 in 1:1000 scale? Is that what you want?
edit on 28-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So recreate 9/11 in 1:1000 scale? Is that what you want?


I have never said anything about scale.

If we don't have accurate data about the distributions of steel and concrete than talking about scale is nonsense.

All I said was that it be self supporting and the top 15% or less by height and weight completely collapse the supporting structure below and damage the components below in the process. Not some house of cards that slides apart without damage.

Why don't people who believe the buildings could do it think the principles can be modeled?

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

If it was blown up then how is it still standing after the initial collapse?


Part of the core was still standing for a few seconds, and then it all collapsed.

There is no explanation for that in the OS, none, nada, nothing.

If the core was not 'blown up', why did it start to collapse before the floors did, indicating the hat truss dropped?
(strangely can't find that vid on youtube now, it was there a few days ago)

Here's a pic...



Why did the core collapse AT ALL if just the floors connections failed?

In fact lets get back to the start, why did the towers collapse period? The sagging truss hypothesis is complete nonsense.


edit on 10/28/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Lets have the truck accelerating and have a constant acceleration even on impact and after impact. Also, the impacted truck is now accelerating along with the impacting truck at the same acceleration, into another truck with the same weight and mass. What will happen then?

Oh by the way, did you recognize the error with your physics yet? I'll give you a hint: you are doing horizontal collisions. The WTC collapse had objects falling. Mr. Physics, figure it out.
edit on 10/27/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)


This is the point where truther knowledge of physics fails. They are simply unable to realize that terms such as "potential energy pushing up" is total nonsense. Potential energy can only act with gravity - down.

It's their failing. They don't see the difference between a horizontal collision where there is simply ke getting "used up" in the collision, and thus no ability for ke to be added back in vs one whereby all the pieces and parts, once set into motion, contribute to an ever increasing ke.

And since they are unable to factor that in, one sees them writing such nonsense like "all the tower dissipated into dust during the collapse", and other nonsense that doesn't bear repeating.....



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Why did the core collapse AT ALL if just the floors connections failed?


Plane impacts and fire damage.


In fact lets get back to the start, why did the towers collapse period?


Plane impacts and fire damage.


The sagging truss hypothesis is complete nonsense.



Sagging trusses pulled in the ext columns, but as Bazant notes, it cannot be the only reason for the inward bowing.

Load transfers after the impacts and as a result of moderate temp, high load viscoplastic creep contributed.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You're asking about building a model. Models are built to scale.

Why not just use computer models instead? It's been done. By engineers.

Im not sure how a physical model has any relevance what so ever.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Just because you can't understand how something happened doesn't mean there has to be some complicated other reason. Planes hit the buildings and rearranged the loads and balancing forces with fires weakening the overburdened structure. Now we have a Titanic/perfect storm scenario. Why can't it be as simple as that? Occam's Razor kinda stuff. Truthers say the lower core columns were rigged with explosives, so how could the columns be standing if they were obliterated initiating the collapse? It's apparent from the video that the columns were not resisting anything above them so the 15v95 theory is moot. There was mutual destruction going on as it all collapsed on itself. There were not two separate solid objects involved, there was a mass of broken debris raining down on everything below which in turn became part of the problem. You can not factor this as one smaller solid block impacting one larger solid block. You just can't but if you insist then you're just spewing nonsense with a frosting of fantasy physics applied to fit your ideas of how it went down. The fact that those columns are still standing is the smoking bullet that tears apart any Truther theories.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
You're asking about building a model. Models are built to scale.

Why not just use computer models instead? It's been done. By engineers.

Im not sure how a physical model has any relevance what so ever.


Most models are designed to LOOK LIKE the real thing. This is about PHYSICS. This is about BEHAVIOR.

This brings in the SQUARE CUBED LAW.

If you don't understand what that is and how it relates to what would happen in a SUPPOSED COLLAPSE then what you are saying about models on this subject is irrelevant drivel.

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


just reading over the first page of this thread, someone mentions the amount of fuel from the planes.. if it was an inside job the planes would have been flown by remote control, and wouldn't have been the planes america claimed hit those buildings. therefore without having access to secret documents you can't predict how much fuel was onboard those planes.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by ANOK
 

Just because you can't understand how something happened doesn't mean there has to be some complicated other reason.


Who says I don't understand how something happened? Just because someone doesn't understand how something happened, it doesn't mean your explanation must be the answer.

I'm not interested in opinion just facts, and the facts show the NIST report is not an accurate account of the collapses, whether I know the real reason or not.

Only an idiot would accept an explanation for something they do not understand. Obviously OSers do not understand the NIST report, as they continually argue for stuff the NIST report doesn't even support.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by piles
reply to post by thedman
 


just reading over the first page of this thread, someone mentions the amount of fuel from the planes.. if it was an inside job the planes would have been flown by remote control, and wouldn't have been the planes america claimed hit those buildings. therefore without having access to secret documents you can't predict how much fuel was onboard those planes.


If we start with the assumption that the official story is true then we should know how much fuel should have been in the planes at the time of impact.

The objective is to figure out if the observed phenomenon could result from the known inputs. But that would include accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete. So if the resulting destruction could not have occurred from the known inputs then there must have been inputs that we don't know about.

That is why it is so important to know if the top 15 stories could destroy the bottom 90. Because if they could not then the official story is TRASH. But after TEN YEARS the physics profession would have egg all over its face. Their not demanding distribution of steel and concrete info already makes them look silly. So their only strategy is to try to convince laymen that they are too stupid to comprehend this problem.

psik



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So recreate 9/11 in 1:1000 scale? Is that what you want?


A 1/1000th scale model would be 16 inches tall. So you expect someone to put 110 levels into 16 inches.

My model is 2 feet tall and has 33 level. A better model would be bigger and heavier to reduce the square cubed problem.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join