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: 58
34
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
with the falling mass having to crush/dislocate all of the supports below?


This only has to happen in truther fantasy world. In the real world it is proven beyond any doubt that not all the supports failed. The only supports essential for the collapse to progress were the floor connections.


I never said ALL OF THE SUPPORTS failed. But for the top of the north tower to come all of the way down then 90+ stories had to give way in some form or another. I am not interested in whatever semantic bullsh# you want to use to avoid that fact. At the end of the day fewer than 5 stories were still standing so something had to happen to 85 stories. So why aren't we even told the tons of steel that were on every one?

How could Newton's 3rd Law not cause the falling block to crush itself against the lower portion. How much energy would that take. My model demonstrates the mutual crushing. Where is there any other collapse model that does? Where is there a model where 15% or less destroys 80%+?

My model is not a fantasy. It is not my fault that you can't make a real one that does what you say.


The curious thing is that since I posted this:



I haven't seen or heard of Ryan Mackey saying anything about it.


psik




posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could Newton's 3rd Law not cause the falling block to crush itself against the lower portion.

How could you fail to understand that yes, indeed, WE ALL KNOW that the falling structure is damaged at the same time that the stationary structure is damaged. You are not telling us anything new or contrary to our understanding. When are you going to get it?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I haven't seen or heard of Ryan Mackey saying anything about it.

psik


I'm sure he's trembling in fear and humiliation at the very thought of it. The mighty PsikeyHackr has vanquished the NASA scientist. Or maybe he thinks your washers and broomstick really aren't much of a 'model'. in the scientific sense.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I never said ALL OF THE SUPPORTS failed.

Except where you used the phrase "all of the supports".

But for the top of the north tower to come all of the way down then 90+ stories had to give way in some form or another.

Yep, some form or another. Or both. Or even more.

I am not interested in whatever semantic bullsh# you want to use to avoid that fact.

So, basically you want your words to be magically immune to interpretation or be void of any meaning that may contradict your fantasy.

At the end of the day fewer than 5 stories were still standing so something had to happen to 85 stories. So why aren't we even told the tons of steel that were on every one?

Read the NIST report.

How could Newton's 3rd Law not cause the falling block to crush itself against the lower portion.

Because you and so many other conspiraphysicist are easily confused by the real world.

How much energy would that take. My model demonstrates the mutual crushing. Where is there any other collapse model that does? Where is there a model where 15% or less destroys 80%+?

Define destroys. If everything was "destroyed" then what were those 1000's of trucks hauling out of Ground Zero?

My model is not a fantasy.

No it is not. The question is - what is it supposed to be "modelling"?

It is not my fault that you can't make a real one that does what you say.

How about the full size ones?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted post by waypastvne

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


That would be because of 'momentum conservation'.

In this demonstration...

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

Momentum conservation is not shown, the bounce back of the objects wouldn't happen, the amount of damage would be consistent with the amount of deceleration, or reversed acceleration (bounce back) shown in the demonstration.

(I already explain this btw, as usual it was ignored.)


Momentum is conserved, to a good approximation, in many collisions.

www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au...

A lot of good info on that site you should familiarize yourself with. The only way you can keep this stupid debate going is by ignoring important points, in order to twist what is being said. Hopefully other people reading this are smart enough to realise that.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Hey Hooper have you ever thought too add something to the Topic
instead of just dissecting posts.And arguing semantics
Are you a Biologist, because you just love to dissect.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by hooper
 


Hey Hooper have you ever thought too add something to the Topic
instead of just dissecting posts.And arguing semantics
Are you a Biologist, because you just love to dissect.

Well, that's the problem with the truth - it is what it is and there's nothing to add. I know you self-proclaimed "truthseekers" do not like to have your pet theories closely examined as most can not stand up to the least amount of scrunity. And as for semantics - this is a written medium, words are important.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted post by waypastvne

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


That would be because of 'momentum conservation'.

In this demonstration...

www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

Momentum conservation is not shown.



Wrong. The demonstration does folllow conservation of momentum. The reason that the 'objects bounce back' is that it illustrates perfectly elastic collisions, as I and others have told you before.




Originally posted by ANOK


(I already explain this btw, as usual it was ignored.)



That is the proper response to any of your physics lectures. Stop it!



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How could Newton's 3rd Law not cause the falling block to crush itself against the lower portion.

How could you fail to understand that yes, indeed, WE ALL KNOW that the falling structure is damaged at the same time that the stationary structure is damaged. You are not telling us anything new or contrary to our understanding. When are you going to get it?


Tell that to Bazant with his crush down crush up crap.


And Frank Greening.

psik



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I haven't seen or heard of Ryan Mackey saying anything about it.

psik


I'm sure he's trembling in fear and humiliation at the very thought of it. The mighty PsikeyHackr has vanquished the NASA scientist. Or maybe he thinks your washers and broomstick really aren't much of a 'model'. in the scientific sense.


Oh yeah, Mackey is SO SCIENTIFIC. He just drew a concept of a model and played with mathematics but never actually built and tested one.

And then there is a curious thing about his mathematics. He uses the conservation of momentum equation to compute the new velocity of the stationary mass. But that mass can't move without breaking the supports holding it in the process but he uses the conservation of momentum equation equation anyway. And then talks about the energy to destroy the supports as though they can be done separately. Yeah, Mackey is REAL SCIENTIFIC.



psik



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What have actual structural engineers and/or other physicists said about your model and theory of the wtc collapse?

Just out of curiosity...



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Originally posted by ANOK

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.


OH this ought to be amusing.

Please tell us Grand Truther If the buildings momentum was NOT 0.000 and its kinetic energy was NOT 0.000

Then what was the buildings momentum P=M x V ___?___ (please fill in the blank)

And what was the buildings kinetic energy KE=1/2 x M x V^2 ___?___ (please fill in the blank)

And how does having 0.000 momentum and 0.000 kinetic energy cancel out the equal opposite reaction law.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


if i was going to commit a crime, i would make damn sure I got away with it.
If the states did do it, they would have made sure they could definatly get away with it..

its not pointless trying to debunk the official story, because there are plenty of holes in the official story
America does have a reputation for creating smoke screens

one thing though i know if i was too demolish a building as big as world trades centres 1 & 2, i would need to weaken the structure first.. as its a massive building.. and there were 100's of reports (many live on tv) of explosions going off in both world trade centre 1 & 2, fireman even pulled their men out of the buildings as a result of these explosions...

I reckon the states would need to have explosives in 1 in about 8 floors at least to pull the buildings, and the only way i can see it possible that they could have explosives in 1 in about 8 floors is if they rented the offices.

I've heard they owned secrety businesses in both building although while i can't prove they did, i also can't prove what floors those businesses were on.. (businesses I've heard they own are goldman sachs, AIG, BOA etc) they apparently own these businesses to raise funds for black budgets.. again can't prove it but still would love to see what businesses exactl occupied wt1, wt2, and wt3



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What have actual structural engineers and/or other physicists said about your model and theory of the wtc collapse?

Just out of curiosity...


When did these actual structural engineers explain how the top of the south tower tilt/rotated 22 degrees in a couple of seconds while pointing out the location of the center of mass of those 29 stories? How could they compute the center of mass without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete.

My model is just part of the demonstration of dereliction of duty on the part of said structural engineers for the last 10 years.

This is grade school physics. They need to explain why they haven't addressed simple questions.

A structure as tall as the WTC has to have significant variation in strength and therefore weight so not talking about it for that long is the obvious problem. 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. Richard Gage and David Chandler are part of the problem for not explaining the simple. But after TEN YEARS the psychological problem is almost more important than 9/11. This exposes the need of experts to keep people ignorant to maintain their status. The Conservation of Momentum is simple enough for 7th graders and 3rd graders should have no trouble building and testing my model.

psik



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by piles
 


This thread was opened by a truther stating there was 8.4 kilotons to much explosive energy in the collapse.
So if you divide that up you get 610 metric tons every 8 floors.

Do you think there was 610 metric tons of explosives planted on every 8th floor ?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


im bassicly struggling to find data that suggests the states may own various secret businesses that were within world trades centre 1 & 2.. i've got a few government offices in wtc1 & 2, however i feel they would have needed more offices on more floors to be able to pull both buildings

i have a list of all office occupants for all the wtc's, but i don't have a list for all of the businesses on all of the floors that occupied the wtc's, but i have most of the data...

from what i have it loks like wt1 could have been demolished from the amount of government offices and adding to that one business i have been informed about, wt2 i am struggling with.. wt7 i'm about 50% there...



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This exposes the need of experts to keep people ignorant to maintain their status.


I don't think it's the engineers and physicists who are keeping you ignorant, PSIK.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This exposes the need of experts to keep people ignorant to maintain their status.


I don't think it's the engineers and physicists who are keeping you ignorant, PSIK.


I am just SO concerned about what YOU think.

So where is the official source that specifies the location of the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower?

psik



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So where is the official source that specifies the location of the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower?

psik


www.slideshare.net...

Will this do? Go to slide 10.

It might not be specific enough, but I figured it got the point across or something.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So where is the official source that specifies the location of the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower?

psik


www.slideshare.net...

Will this do? Go to slide 10.

It might not be specific enough, but I figured it got the point across or something.


NO!

How do TEN YEARS go by without physicists and structural engineers getting specific about the center of mass of the top 29 stories of a skyscraper. How many buildings around the world are bigger than those 29 stories were? One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet. But it is closer to being a forbidden subject.

psik



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
One would think such a problem would attract physicists like a magnet.


Magnets attract only ferrous metals, not physicists.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join