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: 62
34
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are talking about lifting the mass to be dropped to 12 feet on a model that is only 2 feet tall.


Yep. So what? your model doesn't follow any particular systemic relationship to the towers' construction. Put more kinetic energy into the washers, and you'll crush more loops. maybe all of them. According to you, that would prove that the towers' collapse could have happened without outside energy.


My supports strength is in proportion to the weight they support and I already drop the mass from the height of of the model farther up. Using 12 feet from the WTC on that size model is absurd.

If I was willing to make a stack of 110 washers I would do it just to shut you up but of course that still wouldn't shut you up with the nonsense you are talking.


psik


YOU have YET TO PROVE the parts of your model have the same proportions of strength/resistance or load of the real life items they represent!!!

Also scale modles will also suffer from problems that rolled up paper/card, washers, bits of wood and concrete blocks that others have used on youtube cant truly represent massive steel and concrete components of a real building weighing many to hundreds of tons.

Scaling down connections etc would also cause problems on a 1368 ft high building scaled to say 100th or less of real size look at the dimensions of say the connection bolts or angle seats. Also things like friction and air resistance would have a greater effect on a model floorslab than a 700 ton floor slab.




posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
YOU have YET TO PROVE the parts of your model have the same proportions of strength/resistance or load of the real life items they represent!!!


He doesn't have to prove anything, because we know for 100% sure that his model is not in any way an accurate model for the WTC collapse. The fact that each paper loop is carrying the weight of all the floors above it completely invalidates his model.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I'll admit it: I havn't read all 64 pages. I have read years and years of research on 9/11 however.

One thing many of these theories miss out on is maths nitpicking. It doesn't have to be complicated, it's a very simple debunk of 9/11 if you keep the statement simple. This theory has been obfuscated because of possibly shoddy maths. It doesn't need complicated maths! You only need one statement and the whole pack of cards is debunked. I'm going to keep it in laymans terms so bear with me


Take WTC7 for example: If a building collapses at freefall, there is no energy left for it to crush and bend steel and concrete columns. If it did use gravitational energy to to crush, it would fall slower than freefall. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is simply transferred from one point to another. It's highschool physics. No maths to nitpick.. just basic physics.

Naturally this leads to the question: what energy source was used to disintegrate each floor if it wasn't just gravity? I don't think we'll ever know, I have a largely unfounded hunch that it was more than just conventional means.

For at least 8 years this debunk has been around and to this date no one has countered it. I offered to quit the forums if it could be debunked a year or two ago and to this day, no one has. Bring it on.. have fun debunking the laws of thermodynamics!



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by wmd_2008
YOU have YET TO PROVE the parts of your model have the same proportions of strength/resistance or load of the real life items they represent!!!


He doesn't have to prove anything, because we know for 100% sure that his model is not in any way an accurate model for the WTC collapse. The fact that each paper loop is carrying the weight of all the floors above it completely invalidates his model.


Yes we know that he doesn't seem to but if we keep saying it, it may sink in!



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by wmd_2008
YOU have YET TO PROVE the parts of your model have the same proportions of strength/resistance or load of the real life items they represent!!!


He doesn't have to prove anything, because we know for 100% sure that his model is not in any way an accurate model for the WTC collapse. The fact that each paper loop is carrying the weight of all the floors above it completely invalidates his model.


Yes we know that he doesn't seem to but if we keep saying it, it may sink in!


No. Clearly a new tactic is needed. If people such as psikey do not get the idea the first time, repeating it will not get the message through. Perhaps somebody could make their own simple model out of dollar store stuff? I'm sure psikey would dismiss it as inaccurate (lol), but it would at least be a change of pace over the monotonous arguing that goes on.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Well the truthers claim it fell in 7 seconds but if you see a video posted on a truther website taken from above you see the so called penthouse collapse about 7 or 8 seconds before the total collapse.

That shows steelwork had failed internally in that video posted you have a so called engineer on the video claiming the total collapse taking 7 seconds he seems to ignore the penthouse collapse before that.
The best of it is they call themselves architects for the truth


WTC7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and other videos show the fires in the building which lasted for many hours.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Question: what is the energy source for "disintegrating each floor" in a controlled demolition with explosives? hint: its not the explosives.

Fact is, the energy release by the explosives in a controlled demolition is as small as possible. Most of the energy available for destroying the building comes from gravity. The explosives only do minor damage but in critical places. For example, when a steel framed building is demolished, the explosives only slice through a couple of key support columns. It is absolutely useless the blow up floors, walls and what not. And it is completely nonsense to think this is what they did with the WTC buildings.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

WTC7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and other videos show the fires in the building which lasted for many hours.



NISTs' own data shows a 9.8ms-1 straight line acceleration for most of the collapse. It only takes a mere second of free fall and it is debunked.

edit: yet chinese and brazillian skyscrapers that are fully engulfed stand for days. WTC7 had a few floor fires, nothing major. Ever heard of fire codes? If demolition was so easy we'd just light fires in buildings and collapse them into nice neat piles, throwing volcano-like plumes of dust everywhere..

However, this is all irrelevant bantering until you debunk the free fall collapse. You'll probably win a nobel prize if you can debunk thermodynamics.. come on!
edit on 4/11/11 by GhostR1der because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Question: what is the energy source for "disintegrating each floor" in a controlled demolition with explosives? hint: its not the explosives.

Fact is, the energy release by the explosives in a controlled demolition is as small as possible. Most of the energy available for destroying the building comes from gravity. The explosives only do minor damage but in critical places. For example, when a steel framed building is demolished, the explosives only slice through a couple of key support columns. It is absolutely useless the blow up floors, walls and what not. And it is completely nonsense to think this is what they did with the WTC buildings.


You just debunked yourself. It requires energy external to the falling mass as you said... circular logic. I didn't say that is [explosives] what they did with the buildings either. I just pointed out that there is a gaping flaw in the official theorytale using basic physucs. Guess you debunkers haven't dealt with me before.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


I can't recall having dealt with you before, so I don't know what you do or do not know. From the looks of it you haven't heard of Verinage demolition. It is a type of demolition where no "extra" energy is required, except for initiation. It demonstrates that gravity alone can destroy complete buildings once the collapse is initiated. So consider what I wrote undebunked.
edit on 4-11-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


There is not an accumulating mass of resistance EACH floorslab is INDEPENDENT from the OTHERS below as mass drops on a slab only the connections that hold that slab in position can provide resistance to the impacting mass, and THATS what you and psik cant see!


The FLOOR slabs are independent of each other but all of the FLOOR slabs are dependent on THE CORE and the PERIMETER COLUMNS.

That is why I talk about LEVELS instead of FLOORS. You have to ignore the supports that must be collapsed from above and of course you have no evidence whatsoever of the floor assemblies breaking loose from THE CORE.

psik



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is why I talk about LEVELS instead of FLOORS. You have to ignore the supports that must be collapsed from above and of course you have no evidence whatsoever of the floor assemblies breaking loose from THE CORE.

psik


So you do not consider multiple videos and photographs showing a large part of the core still standing after all floors were already on the ground as evidence that the floors broke loose from the core. Nor do you consider photographs of floor connections being torn.

I wonder what you do consider as evidence.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

and of course you have no evidence whatsoever of the floor assemblies breaking loose from THE CORE.

psik


Other than the spire videos, with core columns without floors attached.

And of course, the ext columns situation is not debatable, since they are seen falling without floors attached.

Face it, you really have no sane reason to deny that the floors were detached. To do so is nothing but religious-like fervor.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der

If a building collapses at freefall,



Show that the entire building fell at freefall acceleration.

NIST only says that one point on the building fell at ffa. So does Chandler.

Hell, I've seen some reasonable video analysis done that show that there are periods that are ABOVE ffa. And this is not suspicious, cuz the single point is rotating as it falls.

Therefore, you are using false assumptions to reach your conclusion - you have zero evidence that the entirety of 7 fell at ffa.

You are debunked.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The NIST report show that the building accelerated to free fall (look at the NIST graph). That is something different. And shouldn't be possible with a intact building up to the impact point.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The NIST report show that the building accelerated to free fall (look at the NIST graph). That is something different. And shouldn't be possible with a intact building up to the impact point.



Why do you think it "accelerated"? Please explain what caused it to do that



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The NIST report show that the building accelerated to free fall (look at the NIST graph). That is something different. And shouldn't be possible with a intact building up to the impact point.



Why do you think it "accelerated"? Please explain what caused it to do that


You are asking me why i think the building accelerated to free fall speed for nearly 2,4 seconds?

For a building to accelerate to free fall speed. The building must fall without resistance. The building must fall without resistance to accelerate to free fall speed of 9,8m/sec2.

1. That can only be done if the bottom section of the standing part of the building is taken out.

2. Since the building fell top down. Each floor under the "top falling section" must have been weakened in sequence such that the falling top section didn't encounter resistance on its way down.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Why do you think it "accelerated"? Please explain what caused it to do that


Well according to you the resistance of undamaged structure wasn't removed ahead of the collapse wave. So for it not to be slowed by the resistance the collapse must have accelerated, in order for it to have reached it's collapse speed and overcome that resistance.


edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der


NISTs' own data shows a 9.8ms-1 straight line acceleration for most of the collapse. It only takes a mere second of free fall and it is debunked.


It only takes two words... Momentum Transfer......and you're debunked.
edit on 4-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


There is not an accumulating mass of resistance EACH floorslab is INDEPENDENT from the OTHERS below as mass drops on a slab only the connections that hold that slab in position can provide resistance to the impacting mass, and THATS what you and psik cant see!


So where is that mass of floors going then? Again you can't make that claim without knowing what pressure the connections can withstand. You have no idea that dropping a floor on another floor would cause the connections to fail.

But the fact that there is not a stack of floors in the footprint proves you wrong.

I'll ask this once again, IF the falling floors caused the first static impacted floor connections to fail, then what kept the connections of the first falling/impacting floor of the top block from also failing causing the mass of the rest of the falling floors to fall on it also? That would destroy both floors.


If the slabs below take any load from the slabs above the CONNECTIONS would have been LARGER the lower down the building you went JUST LIKE THE WALL AND CORE STEEL WAS!!


Hmmm any proof of that. If you do it would be good because it doesn't support your case. If the connections get bigger that would mean even more energy would be required to collapse floors at each lower level. Energy doesn't increase in a collapse, it decreases as energy is transferred. Ke does not increase, it is transferred to cause deformation, sound, heat etc. !!!!!!!! (do exclamation marks help lol?)


So as described any falling mass on a slab an taking into account the size ONE ACRE the bulk of falling mass would hit the floorslabs THATS why the impact loads are so important!


LOL no, you again ignore equal opposite reaction. The impact force is felt equally by BOTH objects!!!! All colliding objects have an impact force, nothing unique about the WTC collapse. Both colliding objects are equally effected by the impact force, not just what is being hit. Equal opposite reaction wmd.


For about the first 7 seconds the falling mass all drops inside NO great quantities are being ejected!
So were do you think ANOK & PSIK that all those 700+ tons floorslabs from above the impact are and what do you think they are doing!


Where are they post collapse is what is important.


Also ANOK further to a previous comment you made re the fires on that video you see a whole foor on fire BELOW the impact point.


Wow a floor on fire bellow the impact point.


Dude how many time do I have to repeat, the whole building could have been on fire, it would not completely collapse from less than an hour of fire. One hour of fire is not enough to heat up tens of thousands of tons of steel to failure, period. Regardless of how hot you think the fire got, there is not enough time for thermal exchange between the fire and steel.



It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.


Quit making layman mistakes, and using them as debating points.


In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.

www.wtc7.net...


“NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsingNIST, 2005, p. 140



edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join