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: 56
34
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I think perhaps this post I just made in another thread might be better off in this one....or, at least may serve a purpose here as well.

I forgot to add within it, perhaps one day there will be an extremely accurate super-computer recreation performed, down to the tiniest detail -- every bolt, rivet, weld -- to the extent feasible. The programming task might be too daunting, though....(?) The only other final answer would require a full-scale re-enactment, which is certainly implausible. Computer modelling is the best solution.




Originally posted by ProudBird
:


(Someone else wrote):

The planes had no effect on the collapses....


It is stunning, to read someone write that. It's as if they cannot realize how much damage occurred just from the introduction of the high-velocity mass of the airplane and its structure and components.


(And, then there was this):

....and reality says the planes could not have severed core columns after being slowed and deformed by the outer columns.


That also has no basis in rational contemplation. The overall mass of the airplane structure and components did not slow significantly, merely from the initial impact with the outer facade building structure. I don't think people are understanding the reality of momentum, from velocity, and the extremely short span of time involved.

Think about the speed of the airplanes (American 11 or United 175) at a value of (low) 600 to maybe 700 ft/sec. Then, think of the total width (depth) of the building itself. The figure I see is somewhere around 208 feet on each side, so that will also be its depth. From the initial entry point of the outer pieces, to the first contact with any of the central core components is less than one-half that distance --- correct?

Generously, let's call it 100 feet, shall we? At 600 to 700 ft/sec, can you see just how fast this happened, in real time?

Consider this too.....as the airplane structure and the mass contained within entered, it displaced those components of the building that got "pushed ahead".....any and all of the interior objects that would now contribute to the destruction wave as it propagated inside.

The key point to remember, and note in the *arguments* I keep reading is: The central core columns themselves did not have to be "severed" at all. This is a fallacious argument, and gets to the core (pun) of the lack of understanding re: the physics and dynamics involved.

The individual parts that were assembled to build the darn buildings could easily have failed at their points of attachment...these connections were subjected to extreme force side-loads that they were never designed to withstand. Enough parts and components of the structure would have been dislodged just from the trauma of impact, to seriously endanger the continued stability of the structure itself. Subsequent fires, and uneven heating and the resulting expansions from the heat contributed.

A team at the Purdue University made a video some years ago, and I have not seen it posted lately. They used sophisticated super-computer processing and software to give an impression, in order to help visualize a very likely scenario. Based on the laws of physics....which can be numerically calculated, and the computed can "crunch" those numbers.

Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack


.....the World Trade Center simulation showed that it was the weight of the 10,000 gallons of fuel more than anything else that caused the damage.

"It is the weight, the kinetic energy of the fuel that causes much of the damage in these events," Hoffmann says. "If it weren't for the subsequent fire, the structural damage might be almost the same if the planes had been filled with water instead of fuel."


...

"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."


...

Sozen says the actual damage to the building's facade that was observed was identical to the damage shown by the numerical simulation.

"We calibrated our calculations using data from experiments we had conducted to evaluate the energy imparted from fluid moving at high speed to solid targets," he says. "We concluded that the damage map we calculated for our numerical model of the building would correspond closely to the actual extent of the damage."



Video:




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
lol that video is not reality.

Go take a physics class then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Oh wait, I'll make it easy for you...


What Happens When Two Things Collide

This selection will show you what happens when two objects crash into each other, or collide.

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html
Yes it is a site made for children, thus the 'big red truck'. Sorry but this level of physics is generally taught to children, so it's hard to find an adult alternative. It doesn't matter, if you are correct then the demonstration will prove you right. Go ahead, prove me wrong, this is your chance.


You got your scooter and big red truck out again, are they your new favourite toys ?

Watching this video I don't see the plane or anything else bouncing back the opposite direction at 500 mph.
The average I see is about 80 deg to its original path. Why is that ? Is this video also not reality ?




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So their only strategy is to try to convince laymen that they are too stupid to comprehend this problem.



Well said. This is the strategy of most of the 911 forums; and to confuse and dissuade the genuinely curious.


Sorry but you have to when joe public doesn't really understand construction or the physics of this event due to the method of construction.

You see psikeyhackr made his card and washer model NOW can he prove that the mass of the falling washers and the resistance provided by his card tubes is exactly in proportion to what they represent in real life, I will answer that for you NO!

When people make statements like

But they had concrete cores ( NO they didn't)
All the concrete and steel turned to dust ( NO it didn't)
When they assume the only dust in the dust cloud is concrete ( No it wasn't)
The fire couldn't reach a high enogh temp in under 1 hour (Yes it could)

You see you do have to correct them quite often in fact.

I will be on later with some questions for psikeyhackr and ANOK lets see what answers they give thats if they will actually have the guts to do so!


edit on 31-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


lol that video is not reality.

Go take a physics class then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Oh wait, I'll make it easy for you...


What Happens When Two Things Collide

This selection will show you what happens when two objects crash into each other, or collide.

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

Yes it is a site made for children, thus the 'big red truck'. Sorry but this level of physics is generally taught to children, so it's hard to find an adult alternative. It doesn't matter, if you are correct then the demonstration will prove you right. Go ahead, prove me wrong, this is your chance.


says the guy who just got his ass handed to him by somebody dumber!!!


I don't need no fisicks to be able to reckon this a one



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


what's pretty funny to me is how the Truther people will use less sophisticated animations to try and prove THEIR point. Anok has had it in this discussion as far as I'm concerned. He has been proven wrong and I'm wondering why he spent all that time focusing on the damage from the impact in his reply to me, yet he conveniently forgot my equation of steel+heat+weight=sag proving HIS physics is being twisted to fit his delusion.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 






Watching this video I don't see the plane or anything else bouncing back the opposite direction at 500 mph.


I can't believe you're actually putting this stuff in writing.

Now why wouldn't the jet bounce back? Because of the materials of the jet and the materials of what it hit maybe?

Why didn't the jet just cut through the wall like it wasn't even there? Why did the wall atomize the jet? I thought when you speed up a jet to 500 mph, it cuts through anything. That was just one little concrete wall, why wasn't there a jet-shaped hole in it?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Silly Truther. There was a jet shaped hole in it. It just didn't go all the way through.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic
 


Silly Truther. There was a jet shaped hole in it. It just didn't go all the way through.



I didn't see the hole in the video, can you provide the "after" shot of the wall?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic
 


Silly Truther. There was a jet shaped hole in it. It just didn't go all the way through.


And do you know why? Because the concrete had more mass than the plane, and no matter how fast the plane was going the plane would still be more damaged than the wall. It doesn't matter if there was a hole in the wall, the plane cold not have continued on and also make a hole in an even thicker wall (the core).

'Silly truther', how about ignorant OSer?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You see psikeyhackr made his card and washer model NOW can he prove that the mass of the falling washers and the resistance provided by his card tubes is exactly in proportion to what they represent in real life, I will answer that for you NO!


Now this is the hilarious contradiction. It is the same crap from Ryan Mackey.

He will talk about the scale of a model but then he doesn't demand that the NIST supply the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level. You can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that information.

Since I was building a real physical model of small size I could test the components myself. The model is AS WEAK as I could make it. That is not how skyscrapers are designed. So the issue of proportion to the real building is irrelevant because if it was in proportion then it would be stronger than I made it.

So don't insist that a model be to scale unless you also insist that the NIST supply more data. What was the weight of steel in the horizontal beams in the core at every level?

psik



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic
 


Silly Truther. There was a jet shaped hole in it. It just didn't go all the way through.


And do you know why? Because the concrete had more mass than the plane, and no matter how fast the plane was going the plane would still be more damaged than the wall. It doesn't matter if there was a hole in the wall, the plane cold not have continued on and also make a hole in an even thicker wall (the core).

'Silly truther', how about ignorant OSer?


So if the plane was going slower it would have made the same amount of damage ?

Silly Truther.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
So if the plane was going slower it would have made the same amount of damage ?

Silly Truther.


What?

No, again you show your inability to comprehend.

If the plane was going slower the damage would be less, to BOTH the plane and the building. Why is this so hard to understand?

And stop with the 'silly truther' please, you are not as smart as you pretend to be. If you can't debate maturely then you need to stop.

You should try studying Newtonian physics if you want to make sense in this discussion...

abyss.uoregon.edu...

But that is far more sophisticated than the other proof I have posted, so I hardly expect any lights to go on.


edit on 10/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


If the plane was going slower the damage would be less, to BOTH the plane and the building. Why is this so hard to understand?



So if the plane was going faster the damage would be more to BOTH the plane and the building. Isn't that what us OSers have been saying to you Silly Truthers all along ?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK


If the plane was going slower the damage would be less, to BOTH the plane and the building. Why is this so hard to understand?



So if the plane was going faster the damage would be more to BOTH the plane and the building. Isn't that what us OSers have been saying to you Silly Truthers all along ?


You have been saying anything, even a chicken mcnugget can cut through anything else if the right amount of speed is reached.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

So if the plane was going faster the damage would be more to BOTH the plane and the building. Isn't that what us OSers have been saying to you Silly Truthers all along ?


No it's not, you have been ignoring the fact that both objects damage would increase. What you have been saying is the force of the plane on the building increases, but not the force on the plane.

The same incorrect reasoning you use when you describe the collapses, and how the falling floors crushed the static floors.

If you understood correctly you would realise that the towers could not have completely collapsed from gravity.


edit on 10/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
What you have been saying is the force of the plane on the building increases, but not the force on the plane.


Exactly where and when did I said that... Truther ?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic
 


Silly Truther. There was a jet shaped hole in it. It just didn't go all the way through.



So how fast would you estimate that jet would have needed to go to punch all the way through? At 500 MPH it was obliterated...light speed?


Source



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


right, there you go again, comparing masses in collisions and declaring the larger object the winner. Thanks, for your 2 cents.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
What you have been saying is the force of the plane on the building increases, but not the force on the plane.


Exactly where and when did I said that... Truther ?


Right here, 'OSer'...



Originally posted by waypastvne

The buildings had mass, but its momentum was 0.000 and its kinetic energy was 0.000.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That shows you fail to understand the equal opposite reaction law, as you insist only the plane could put a force on the building.



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Well that's amazing. a 12 foot thick reinforced (probably heavily) concrete wall designed specifically to resist impact from airplanes came through an impact with a small jet almost unscathed. Amazing. What does that prove again?

Oh right this proves that no planes crashed on 9/11.

Oh the humanity!




top topics



 
34
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join