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: 71
34
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I already told you I downloaded it and burned it to DVD years ago.

Which, I guess, is the equivalent in your world to reading it?

I doubt that I have read a total of more than 400 pages.

Wow. And you openly admit that. And then come out here and claim to tell everyone what is and what is not in the report. Amazing.


Maybe you will learn to read someday.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?


Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.


Where did I say anything about IMPACTING PERFECTLY? That is YOUR ASSUMPTION.

The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.

PSIK


Um, no. You act as if the only way for vertical supports to miss each-other was if the entire core shifted away. Are you crazy?!

I mean (and damn it man, this should be obvious) that the vertical columns could not land directly on each other. Was this clear? Do I have to draw a picture?





See how this works now? I've simplified it the best I can. If you don't get it now, I give up.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFL

Where did I ever say something as ridiculous as "focus all of their weight perfectly"? That doesn't even make any sense. I presume you are talking about the floor assemblies outside of the core. They were just attached to the core along their inner edge. I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone.

Where is your evidence that any floor ever detached from the core?


Ok, thank you for finally answering me.

Now, look at what you just said. You said "I have been talking about the core above the impact zone coming down on the core below the impact zone." Think about this for a short moment, wouldn't you? You are saying that there is a space as the core "comes down" on itself as if it was somehow separated and impacting perfectly (this is where I get that word) on each of the vertical columns.


Where did I say anything about IMPACTING PERFECTLY? That is YOUR ASSUMPTION.

The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.

PSIK


Um, no. You act as if the only way for vertical supports to miss each-other was if the entire core shifted away. Are you crazy?!

I mean (and damn it man, this should be obvious) that the vertical columns could not land directly on each other. Was this clear? Do I have to draw a picture?





See how this works now? I've simplified it the best I can. If you don't get it now, I give up.


So you can pretend I never said anything about the HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the columns in the core. I am so impressed.

psik



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Are you now suggesting that the horizontal beams will somehow land on each other? Please, state clearly what it is you're saying, because I'm not getting it, obviously.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


The only way for the falling core to miss the lower stationary core would be to move horizontally 80 feet. Since that obviously did not happen then the core came down on the core. You are introducing this PERFECTION crap to give yourself a debating point.

PSIK


For the South Tower, the top section tilted, remember? So that entire section of core and floors was falling off-center in relation to the core below. It ends up just plowing through whatever is in its way. But we still end up seeing a good hunk of the core still standing after the initial collapse.

For the North Tower, the tilt was far smaller, but the core section of the top section did not land dead on top of the core segment below. Once you move the thing over, its not going to hit it perfectly. The top block goes down, but the core columns directly below were probably impacted by it and bent out of snapped at the connections. Remember these photos?





This site shows us some of the core columns. Why do you think so many are bent like that?

Also on this (ugh) "truther" forum, they have some great photos taken inside the WTC during construction.
letsrollforums.com...

Also if you are still having trouble understanding how the floors were set up:



edit on 11/16/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Are you now suggesting that the horizontal beams will somehow land on each other? Please, state clearly what it is you're saying, because I'm not getting it, obviously.


Are you actually serious???

The core columns were connected by horizontal beams at every level of the building. We do not have detailed data on the thickness of the beams increased down the building. But there is no way for the top core to come down on the lower core and for the horizontal beams to NOT HIT EACH OTHER. How can you not figure out something that obvious?

Get some rubber bands and connect all of your fingers on both hands with them. Then try putting your hands together with your fingers separated. The rubber bands have to hit each other. Your fingers are like the columns and the rubber bands are like the horizontal beams. So how am I supposed to believe you can understand any of this if you can't figure that out?

psik



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Lets see psik you obviously missed this picture a few pages back just at the area were the
column trees start to split the horizontal beams will get SMALLER further up as does the
core steel does!


Originally posted by Varemia

i.imgur.com...


The purpose of the beams are to stop this.


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


Which you guys love to ignore!!!

The other reason to provide an anchor point for the floorslab connections at the core
columns.

Now a little video for people who think the energy would get less further down the collapse.




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
People who think they understand dominoes are such GENIUSES!

No DAMAGE to the material occurs when dominoes fall over. Doing damage REQUIRES ENERGY.

The only source for the energy is the falling mass. So as long as no damage occurs in the collapse it is not a valid example.

The paper loops in my model get crushed. It requires 0/118 joules per single loop.

psik



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
When I read the title of this thread "Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did" I thought to myself (initially): Yep, planes and gravity?



edit on 17-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: fix a bb code typo.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Ten years later and there is still a debate.

Ten years ago National Fire Protection Association standards were LAW in almost 100 countries, including the U.S..

Many of the most basic NFPA Fire Investigation standards were NOT permitted or carried out on the World Trade Center buildings.





edit on 17-11-2011 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
People who think they understand dominoes are such GENIUSES!

No DAMAGE to the material occurs when dominoes fall over. Doing damage REQUIRES ENERGY.

The only source for the energy is the falling mass. So as long as no damage occurs in the collapse it is not a valid example.

The paper loops in my model get crushed. It requires 0/118 joules per single loop.

psik


The dominoes fall due to gravity, the floorslabs fall due to gravity as more of the building falls the mass gets bigger! The imapcts get BIGGER like the dominoes!

Your paper loops cant move sideways like the columns could and did!!! due to your brush handle you built a model shock absorber not a model wtc column!! NOW DO YOU GET IT!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The dominoes fall due to gravity, the floorslabs fall due to gravity as more of the building falls the mass gets bigger! The imapcts get BIGGER like the dominoes!

Your paper loops cant move sideways like the columns could and did!!! due to your brush handle you built a model shock absorber not a model wtc column!! NOW DO YOU GET IT!!!


But the dominoes do not have to overcome resistance. They're not connected together. The towers floors when they impacted had to break connections, which takes energy, along with sound, heat, deformation of steel and concrete. All that work takes energy, so where is that coming from? The Ke produced from the movement of the top, according to you. Once that Ke is lost the collapse can not continue.

I think you will agree that the concrete would not be as strong as the connections. So if there was enough energy to instantly break all the connections, then the floors would also be destroyed. Post collapse evidence proves the building contents were everywhere but the towers footprints. So we know the mass was being ejected during the collapses, your attempts to claim otherwise are based on nothing but hope.

Again, there is also the core that you keep ignoring by sticking to the fantasy that the floors kept the core from collapsing. Which anyone with any engineering experience can see is nonsense.

It is NOTHING like dominoes toppling over lol. It would be somewhat closer if they were dropping dominoes on top of each other. *Shakes head*. You really don't get this.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Lets see you make some comments on things you like to avoid for a change WE dont avoid your BS!

So psik lets see some comments on

Impacts!
Slim column buckling!
Floorslab loads/connections!

Lets see some actuall maths/physics put into those!

IE SOME CALCULATIONS! you have plenty to use to get an idea of the forces so DONT AVOID IT with your usual I dont know this etc etc!

Please tell everyone what you think the impact would be of even half a floorslab falling!

area 42,000 sq ft thickness 4" concrete mix was stated as 115/cu ft it would drop 12 ft or 3.6 mtrs will let you use the american short ton 2000 lbs or the UK ton at 2240 lbs plenty of calculators on the net use what ever one you want as angle seats sheared and seem to have been about 1" thick 25mm or 0.025 mtr use that as the stopping distance although they didn't STOP IT, increase that if you want even to 0.2 mtr to give you a fighting chance of a lower load!

Now I think you will avoid and deflect as usual as it would prove you WRONG!



edit on 17-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Guess what ANOK the bigger dominoes represent the increase in mass as the floors fall!!!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But the dominoes do not have to overcome resistance. They're not connected together. The towers floors when they impacted had to break connections, which takes energy, along with sound, heat, deformation of steel and concrete. All that work takes energy, so where is that coming from? The Ke produced from the movement of the top, according to you. Once that Ke is lost the collapse can not continue.

I think you will agree that the concrete would not be as strong as the connections. So if there was enough energy to instantly break all the connections, then the floors would also be destroyed. Post collapse evidence proves the building contents were everywhere but the towers footprints. So we know the mass was being ejected during the collapses, your attempts to claim otherwise are based on nothing but hope.

Again, there is also the core that you keep ignoring by sticking to the fantasy that the floors kept the core from collapsing. Which anyone with any engineering experience can see is nonsense.

It is NOTHING like dominoes toppling over lol. It would be somewhat closer if they were dropping dominoes on top of each other. *Shakes head*. You really don't get this.


The dominoes have to push a larger dominoe IE GREATER resistance! SO YOU GOT THAT
WRONG!!!

The 5mm high dominoe weighing a fraction of an ounce caused the 100lb dominoe to fall.

The floorslab mass doesn't change IN THE LOWER FLOORS (unlike the dominoes) the connections dont change the resistance they provide doesn't change BUT the mass falling on them increases!

The lower floor of the falling mass hits the floor below it, that causes the impact
look at this video.



From the start of the collapse for the first few seconds everything goes
down NOT OUT, CARE TO EXPLAIN were all the material that fell went!
After that walls collapse due to impacts and no support!
Gravity doesn't stop pulling all the MASS cant be lost so it falls.

You dont understand that you can't build a coulmn as high as you want DUE to slim
column buckling!!!!


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


The important bits under lined for those that dont UNDESTAND STRUCTURES (ANOK,PSIK)

edit on 17-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
People who think they understand dominoes are such GENIUSES!

No DAMAGE to the material occurs when dominoes fall over. Doing damage REQUIRES ENERGY.

The only source for the energy is the falling mass. So as long as no damage occurs in the collapse it is not a valid example.

The paper loops in my model get crushed. It requires 0/118 joules per single loop.

psik


The dominoes fall due to gravity, the floorslabs fall due to gravity as more of the building falls the mass gets bigger! The imapcts get BIGGER like the dominoes!

Your paper loops cant move sideways like the columns could and did!!! due to your brush handle you built a model shock absorber not a model wtc column!! NOW DO YOU GET IT!!!


But the NIST said the core supported 53% of the weight. In order for the top of the north tower to come down it had to damage the CORE. That would require energy and the only source was the kinetic energy of the falling mass, therefore it would SLOW DOWN.

Believing in the domino analogy is for MORONS.

Let's see him build a structure where the dominoes are held above each other and make it collapse. The supports would have to be destroyed. That is a JOKE!


psik



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Lets see you make some comments on things you like to avoid for a change WE dont avoid your BS!

So psik lets see some comments on

Impacts!
Slim column buckling!
Floorslab loads/connections!

Lets see some actuall maths/physics put into those!

IE SOME CALCULATIONS! you have plenty to use to get an idea of the forces so DONT AVOID IT with your usual I dont know this etc etc!

Please tell everyone what you think the impact would be of even half a floorslab falling!

area 42,000 sq ft thickness 4" concrete mix was stated as 115/cu ft it would drop 12 ft or 3.6 mtrs will let you use the american short ton 2000 lbs or the UK ton at 2240 lbs plenty of calculators on the net use what ever one you want as angle seats sheared and seem to have been about 1" thick 25mm or 0.025 mtr use that as the stopping distance although they didn't STOP IT, increase that if you want even to 0.2 mtr to give you a fighting chance of a lower load!

Now I think you will avoid and deflect as usual as it would prove you WRONG!


Oh yeah! Where is the DATA on how strong the truss connections were relative to the weight of the floor slabs?

You want calculations to prove something but you don't demand the obviously relevant data to do any calculations.

The truss connections were the same all of the way down the building. But the building could not have been the same all of the way down because more and more weight had to be supported. So why don't you want the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

Stupid debating games without doing the physics. But you want calculations.


Now you have to call not knowing the distribution of steel down a skyscraper a deflection when you can't specify the strength on the truss connections that you constantly talk about.

psik



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Oh yeah! Where is the DATA on how strong the truss connections were relative to the weight of the floor slabs?

You want calculations to prove something but you don't demand the obviously relevant data to do any calculations.

The truss connections were the same all of the way down the building. But the building could not have been the same all of the way down because more and more weight had to be supported. So why don't you want the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

Stupid debating games without doing the physics. But you want calculations.


Now you have to call not knowing the distribution of steel down a skyscraper a deflection when you can't specify the strength on the truss connections that you constantly talk about.

psik


Well why dont you use some common sense what data do we have ?

Well you have heard of FACTOR OF SAFETY so lets help you again as construction is not your strong point!

Mass of a floorslab is just over 700 tons (UK TONS) put another 100 tons on for trusses and decking steel (it's probably less than that) so thats 800 tons.

Most engineers are happy with a 3:1 FOS so that's 3 x 800 = 2400 tons
( hope this is not to complicated for you psik)

Lets round that up to 3000 tons so that would give you a good indication of what the connections would support.

OVER to you now LETS see you do some number crunching if you can that is!!!
edit on 17-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008Well why dont you use some common sense what data do we have ?

Well you have heard of FACTOR OF SAFETY so lets help you again as construction is not your strong point!

Mass of a floorslab is just over 700 tons (UK TONS) put another 100 tons on for trusses and decking steel (it's probably less than that) so thats 800 tons.

Most engineers are happy with a 3:1 FOS so that's 3 x 800 = 2400 tons
( hope this is not to complicated for you psik)

Lets round that up to 3000 tons so that would give you a good indication of what the connections would support.

OVER to you now LETS see you do some number crunching if you can that is!!!


Here is the calculation for the weight of the slab.

(((206*206)-(136*86))*(4.333/12)*110)/2000 = 610.48 short tons

The pans were corrugated so the average thickness is 4.333 inches. The concrete was 110 lb/cu ft.

I have never seen data on the weight of all of the trusses and floor pans. So you do whatever inaccurate calculations you want. I have seen the weight per square foot that the floors were supposed to hold but I don't recall what it was.

So you do whatever inaccurate calculations you want.

I could not care less. The distribution of steel down the building which most people do not talk about is more important than the floor pancaking delusion that is constantly promoted. The Potential Energy of the building cannot even be accurately computed without the distributions of steel and concrete. Curious how such a simple but obvious calculation is not discussed by people constantly talking about MATHEMATICS.


psik
edit on 17-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


You need to calculate the FoS of all the connections, combined, not the floor slab.

Remember you claim the connections failed, not the floors themselves?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join