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: 69
34
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So did you watch the tower construction video or not? I don't even care if you tell the truth anymore. I just want you to answer the question. I mean, jeez, just post, "sure," or say, "no." It's not very hard. I promise.

The video of the tower construction does show the core under construction, and you may be able to discern things from it. I'm not badgering you for no reason.


I watched the entire one hour program created by the Port Authority years ago. I must have watched at least a dozen videos about the WTC that involved its construction.

After TEN YEARS the people on one side of this issue HAVE TO BE STUPID. It is just a question of which side. All skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore they must support more weight the further down you go. That means more steel. Therefore that means more weight. So to not know the distribution of mass means to not know the distribution of strength. So the people trying to justify the belief in collapse have to dish out bullsh# about floors and truss connections. But those connections were the same all of the way down the building. So some nitwits have to ignore what did change down the building.

psik




posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Doesn't that still ignore the fact that in order to hold up and resist a falling mass, all of the mass must be distributed on the vertical support columns? By my understanding of the way systems fall, there is no way to maintain a perfectly aligned vertical on vertical impact.

This is especially present if the collapse was indeed caused by fire, because then, the connection would not be broken, but buckled, in which case there is practically no way it could land perfectly on the vertical columns below. It would impact horizontal supports and the trusses, which are only designed to resist horizontally.

Also, remember that at the collapse point, the floors were not entirely intact. Both planes came in at an angle and severed vertical columns as well as a lot of the trusses. This is visible in the impact photo of the North Tower, in which you can see the trusses are off their seats and resting on the floors below.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Doesn't that still ignore the fact that in order to hold up and resist a falling mass, all of the mass must be distributed on the vertical support columns? By my understanding of the way systems fall, there is no way to maintain a perfectly aligned vertical on vertical impact.

This is especially present if the collapse was indeed caused by fire, because then, the connection would not be broken, but buckled, in which case there is practically no way it could land perfectly on the vertical columns below. It would impact horizontal supports and the trusses, which are only designed to resist horizontally.

Also, remember that at the collapse point, the floors were not entirely intact. Both planes came in at an angle and severed vertical columns as well as a lot of the trusses. This is visible in the impact photo of the North Tower, in which you can see the trusses are off their seats and resting on the floors below.


According to the OFFICIAL STORY there had to be 90 intact stories below the impact zone of the north tower. The mass below would still have to be accelerated to come down in less than 30 seconds. The fire is totally irrelevant to that acceleration. So why shouldn't we have reasonably accurate data on the distribution of mass that had to be accelerated? The Potential Energy cannot even be computed without that information.

So why aren't physicists all over the US at least admitting that if not demanding the information.

psik



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
According to the OFFICIAL STORY there had to be 90 intact stories below the impact zone of the north tower. The mass below would still have to be accelerated to come down in less than 30 seconds. The fire is totally irrelevant to that acceleration. So why shouldn't we have reasonably accurate data on the distribution of mass that had to be accelerated? The Potential Energy cannot even be computed without that information.

So why aren't physicists all over the US at least admitting that if not demanding the information.

psik


Do you mean you want how much each floor weighed? Or do you want how much distributed weight they were resisting?

And anyway, the vertical distribution load makes no difference once the mass is impacting horizontal supports. What about horizontal supports is confusing you?



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



According to the OFFICIAL STORY there had to be 90 intact stories below the impact zone of the north tower.

Yeah, so?

The mass below would still have to be accelerated to come down in less than 30 seconds.

Yes, more or less. The portion of the mass that was closer to the ground came down in less time then the mass that was higher up from the ground, but that's pretty close.

The fire is totally irrelevant to that acceleration.

Yes, because the acceleration was caused by gravity.

So why shouldn't we have reasonably accurate data on the distribution of mass that had to be accelerated?


You do, but you don't like to read and...its irrelevant.

The Potential Energy cannot even be computed without that information.

Really? So you can't calculate the PE on a one pound of mass falling 200' unless your told how its "distributed"?

So why aren't physicists all over the US at least admitting that if not demanding the information

Because they're smart enough to know that its meaningless.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Oh I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint.


You can't be serious dude?

How can you logically expect the floors to stay in the footprints when the core columns and the rest of the internalls didn't?

Have you not read the reports of what was found on top of other buildings? According to you, everything but the magic floors.

Again though you miss the point, even IF the floors were still stacked up in the footprint it doesn't explain the complete collapse of the core, let alone the floors themselves. In fact the collapse should never have started in the first place. Sagging trusses can not create a pulling force.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, because the acceleration was caused by gravity.


How could the acceleration be caused by gravity if there were supports strong enough to hold it against gravity since it was held up for 28 years? How could the mass above eliminate the supports below?

psik



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How could the acceleration be caused by gravity if there were supports strong enough to hold it against gravity since it was held up for 28 years? How could the mass above eliminate the supports below?

Yeah, you're right. Once something is standing it can never come down. That's just basic common sense. Everything that's ever been erected is still standing.

Gravity and acceleration due to gravity are two different things. Read some physics books, they're pretty interesting.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How could the acceleration be caused by gravity if there were supports strong enough to hold it against gravity since it was held up for 28 years? How could the mass above eliminate the supports below?

Yeah, you're right. Once something is standing it can never come down. That's just basic common sense. Everything that's ever been erected is still standing.

Gravity and acceleration due to gravity are two different things. Read some physics books, they're pretty interesting.


What moronic rhetorical physics. Something either had to eliminate the supports below or the mass falling from above had to crush the supports below. But how could the top of the north tower crush the supports below and not slow down for the tower to come down in less than 30 seconds.

Your rhetorical crap is nothing but that. CRAP!

Oh sure, everybody is supposed to believe that nonsense without being told the distributions of steel and concrete. But how stupid are the people who can't even figure out the importance of the information?

psik



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Most of the vertical core supports weren't crushed. Don't you remember?



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Most of the vertical core supports weren't crushed. Don't you remember?


The STURCTURE of the core had to have be crushed IF IT WAS A TOP DOWN COLLAPSE. It does not matter that every individual vertical beam was not crushed. But if something OTHER THAN a top down collapse is what actually occurred then the individual components would not be crushed anyway. My entire point is that a complete collapse is not what could have occurred.

You people who claim that it did need to explain how the falling top could provide enough energy for that to happen but you don't even want to provide accurate data on the distribution of steel. You expect people to just BELIEVE video that you can't explain and nearly pretend that the core did not exist.

psik



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Sorry psik but we know the impact energy would be WELL ABOVE the fos and as pointed out we have to consider slim column bucking.

So your core steel didn't stand a chance!
edit on 14-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The STURCTURE of the core had to have be crushed IF IT WAS A TOP DOWN COLLAPSE. It does not matter that every individual vertical beam was not crushed. But if something OTHER THAN a top down collapse is what actually occurred then the individual components would not be crushed anyway. My entire point is that a complete collapse is not what could have occurred.

You people who claim that it did need to explain how the falling top could provide enough energy for that to happen but you don't even want to provide accurate data on the distribution of steel. You expect people to just BELIEVE video that you can't explain and nearly pretend that the core did not exist.

psik


Ah yes, so I am to understand that this is not real? Was this not present after the collapse happened?! IS THIS PRESENT IN THE FOLLOWING PICTURE?



This is the remains of the core after the tower collapsed. As you should be able to work out, the core was not what was being destroyed, primarily. It was mostly the trusses. Now, is this clear enough or do I need to pull out more proof? It's there, in plain freaking view.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Ah yes, so I am to understand that this is not real? Was this not present after the collapse happened?! IS THIS PRESENT IN THE FOLLOWING PICTURE?



This is the remains of the core after the tower collapsed. As you should be able to work out, the core was not what was being destroyed, primarily. It was mostly the trusses. Now, is this clear enough or do I need to pull out more proof? It's there, in plain freaking view.


My point is could a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE produce that? You are claiming that it could.

So why can't it be demonstrated with a good model with the correct distribution of mass. Why aren't our physicists even demanding accurate mass distribution info.

All you are saying is ASSUME THIS and then BELIEVE this will result.

Something other than just gravitational collapse produced that result.

psik



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
My point is could a GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE produce that? You are claiming that it could.

So why can't it be demonstrated with a good model with the correct distribution of mass. Why aren't our physicists even demanding accurate mass distribution info.

All you are saying is ASSUME THIS and then BELIEVE this will result.

Something other than just gravitational collapse produced that result.

psik


Why can't it do it? Every time I contradict your reasons for thinking the collapse was faulty, you come up with another bogus reason.

You can't make a good model simply because you suck at making models. Washers on paper loops around a broom handle is NOT an accurate model!

Also, even in a controlled demo, it USES gravitational collapse, so you are WRONG!!!



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Why can't it do it? Every time I contradict your reasons for thinking the collapse was faulty, you come up with another bogus reason.

You can't make a good model simply because you suck at making models. Washers on paper loops around a broom handle is NOT an accurate model!

Also, even in a controlled demo, it USES gravitational collapse, so you are WRONG!!!


But a controlled demo is a collapse with the supports beneath destroyed. That is not what supposedly happened to the WTC. So the word collapse is not sufficiently precise to be useful. It describes different conditions. Not sufficiently scientific.

The model is not intended to be accurate in the sense of a scale model. It is not a tube-in-tube design.

If no one knows the strength of the floor connections relative to the weight of the floor then it can't be done. We also do not have the distribution of mass down the building.

So I am only demonstrating a gravitational collapse with the supports as weak as possible. Where is the engineering school that has built a model that can completely collapse?

psik



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Oh I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint.


You can't be serious dude?

How can you logically expect the floors to stay in the footprints when the core columns and the rest of the internalls didn't?





Gee ANOK, I didnt know that it is so hard for you to think about multiple exclusive events occurring at the same time. It is not one or the other here. But I see I have to devolve down to just above sock puppets to explain it to you:

Event #1: The floors went straight down when they collapsed. Why? Because they were like a stack of plates all above each other and they went down. Nothing to throw them sideways or up.
Just D O W N. Here is the part where you are suppose to show me any evidence that this did not happen. Explain how in your mind, floors that are stacked above and below each other dont fall onto each other straight down.

Even #2: The core columns were left freestanding after the floors fell DOWN. Core columns were tall segments that required the floors and exterior columns to stay up. The remains did stay up for another 15 seconds after initial collapse. Once the damage was too great and/or the new stresses on the damaged sections was too great, they started to fall. As was seen in the North Tower's Spire video, some of the core columns fell over like giant sequoias in large segments. Others fell down when a segment got dislodged by the collapse sideways or stress was placed below where we could see the failure and the columns fell "straight" down. Something like in this video:

Pay close attention at 0:09-0:11 you can see a large segment of the core columns actually tilting over and falling away. At 0:33 at far right you can see another large segment of the core column falling away like a tree.
For these columns of the core they behaved just like this radio tower @ 2:52 in the video:


The other columns that appear to fall straight "down" this is what happened:


Simple stuff ANOK. I thought someone with so much experience and knowledge of physics would figure something so simple like this!




Have you not read the reports of what was found on top of other buildings? According to you, everything but the magic floors.


Really?
You mean. GASP! The exterior columns?
Oh, and DUST!!!
AND? Aluminum cladding??!!!!
But, wait, where are your precious floors? Oh yeah......... in the footprint! But wait, you just said that everything but the magic floors? So you agree? The floors stayed in? Good. Then why are you being so stubborn?




Again though you miss the point, even IF the floors were still stacked up in the footprint it doesn't explain the complete collapse of the core, let alone the floors themselves. In fact the collapse should never have started in the first place. Sagging trusses can not create a pulling force.


Um yeah, it does. Not "if" ANOK. "DID". It DID happen as corroborated by: NIST, FEMA, first responders, oh yeah and the guys that were in the debris field inside the footprint cutting into the stack, and actually finding STACKED FLOORS inside. And what proof do you have that they didnt fall into the footprint? You still havent answered the question but responded with personal incredulity. I have plenty of evidence backed up with facts and eyewitness accounts. You? Personal incredulity does not count. So once again I ask you: Please show me actual evidence of the floors being ejected outside the footprint, which means, actual pictures taken during or just after the collapse where one can decently see the floor trusses with the steel decking attached and concrete slabs being ejected through the exterior columns.

And yes, sagging trusses can create a pulling force. Especially when having a load on it. I wonder why firefighters are so deathly afraid of roof collapses inside steel trussed structures?Loaded Sagging beam creates a "pulling effect"
edit on 11/14/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint.


Maybe it is the same place as evidence of pancaked floors.


psik


Hmm, so all those guys that were working inside the footprint of the WTCs, cutting into the debris and discovering stacks of floors compressed into sizes a fraction of their original were all hallucinating?

Of course, when facts show up, its best to run like hell and hide to protect your precious erroneous beliefs based solely on personal incredulity. I told ANOK and I am now telling you: Personal Incredulity is not a strong defense or counter-argument to facts.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually, what your model does is show that compression will slow to a halt when gravitational accleration is no longer able to continue increasing the momentum. You see, the main flaw in your design is that you do not have the in-between floor space for acceleration, and it allows for no lateral movement such as buckling, which would weaken a system and cause a less symmetrical, more chaotic collapse. Your model is inherently flawed.

Plus, in the towers, a majority of the core survived the collapse, so your idea about the entire building's vertical columns needing to be crushed is shot down again.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Actually, what your model does is show that compression will slow to a halt when gravitational accleration is no longer able to continue increasing the momentum. You see, the main flaw in your design is that you do not have the in-between floor space for acceleration, and it allows for no lateral movement such as buckling, which would weaken a system and cause a less symmetrical, more chaotic collapse. Your model is inherently flawed.

Plus, in the towers, a majority of the core survived the collapse, so your idea about the entire building's vertical columns needing to be crushed is shot down again.


The core didn't have just empty space. Some material had to be there to provide the strength to hold up the floors. This pancaking bulldh# has to pretend the core is irrelevant. So why hasn't any engineering school been able to build a model that can collapse? What engineering school has even claimed to try?

Haven't even tried in TEN YEARS. Great Science!!!

psik



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join