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: 76
34
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?

I assume from your use of this constant refrain that you have contacted every engineering school, on a regular basis over the last ten years, and determined that they have not built such a model or are you assuming that because they have not posted all their projects on youtube for your convenience that no school has?




posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?

I assume from your use of this constant refrain that you have contacted every engineering school, on a regular basis over the last ten years, and determined that they have not built such a model or are you assuming that because they have not posted all their projects on youtube for your convenience that no school has?


You can assume whatever you want.

Purdue produced their ridiculous computer simulation of the airliner hitting the north tower. I emailed 3 people there. Two responded. They told me to contact professor Sozen. He does not respond. Their stupid simulation has core columns that do not move even though the NIST admits the south tower deflected 12 inches 130 feet below where the plane hit.

The NIST admits in 2 places that the distribution of weight is important to analyzing the impact. There is a little matter of the conservation of momentum.

So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?

psik



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?

Or....you don't like the solution. Or.....you are smarter than the entire engineering department at Purdue. But to the question, besides your singular attempt to contact one school you have never established that no school has built the model you describe. Just thought we would get that settled before it went much further.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?

Or....you don't like the solution. Or.....you are smarter than the entire engineering department at Purdue. But to the question, besides your singular attempt to contact one school you have never established that no school has built the model you describe. Just thought we would get that settled before it went much further.



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So our engineering schools have created a problem for themselves by not solving a simple Newtonian Physics problem that should have been solved in 2002. But how can they solve it now without admitting that they have allowed bullsh# to go on for a decade?

Or....you don't like the solution. Or.....you are smarter than the entire engineering department at Purdue. But to the question, besides your singular attempt to contact one school you have never established that no school has built the model you describe. Just thought we would get that settled before it went much further.


You can worry about who is smarter all you want. I really don't care what you think about it.

But I haven't heard anyone explain why the south tower deflected in reality according to the NIST and yet the north tower did not in Purdue's simulation. In fact I haven't encountered anyone choosing to discuss it. It is like another one of those things to be ignored. I guess it disturbs the 9/11 Religion.

The Purdue simulation is not really an explanation of anything. We know a plane hit the building. They explain nothing about the collapse. It mostly seems a pointless exercise to me except for their silly failure of not having the core columns move.

To me the question is why do people worship schools over such a simple problem.

The 9/11 decade is very curious psychologically. Apparently millions of people can consider it smart to not think about simple stuff for themselves.

psik



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?

I assume from your use of this constant refrain that you have contacted every engineering school, on a regular basis over the last ten years, and determined that they have not built such a model or are you assuming that because they have not posted all their projects on youtube for your convenience that no school has?


Well considering how easy it was for Purdue to put their simulation on Youtube then why would any school that built a physical model that could collapse not advertise the fact?

You can assume that it has been done if you want.

psik



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well considering how easy it was for Purdue to put their simulation on Youtube then why would any school that built a physical model that could collapse not advertise the fact?

You can assume that it has been done if you want.

psik


Um, dude, one was rendered in video format for a presentation. Physical models would not need this. They would need documentation and such, perhaps pictures, but videos are not completely necessary, and then you have to get the people to upload it if they did, and then the video has to be from a satisfactory angle in order to be criticized scientifically. I mean, you can assume that it hasn't been done, but that doesn't prove it. Not everyone out there is seeking to prove to you that it wasn't demolitions. In fact, almost no one is. I'm only here as a layman because it's a satisfying use of my time attempting to correct the false facts and assumptions made here.

You, though. You just keep making claims and pointing to your "weak" model as if it not being able to stand on its own is evidence that it is a proper model of the towers' compression mechanism. Just because it is a self-supporting model that couldn't collapse doesn't mean another self-supporting model can't. That's just dishonest.

You also seem to assume that the entire model must be crushed in order to facilitate a complete collapse. This is also not true in relation to the towers, because as is clearly visible from the debris pile, there was a significant amount of debris that wasn't crushed or particularly broken. It simply had its bolt connections snapped off or sheared off.

Now think about that for a second. Wouldn't a more accurate model allow for buckling and point breaking? Without many of the aspects that allowed for the tower to collapse, you have inadvertently strengthened your model beyond anything reasonable. This is why you are wrong, and hopefully I've made the case clear. I know you have a knack for ignoring people and then laughing at them.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
You, though. You just keep making claims and pointing to your "weak" model as if it not being able to stand on its own is evidence that it is a proper model of the towers' compression mechanism. Just because it is a self-supporting model that couldn't collapse doesn't mean another self-supporting model can't. That's just dishonest.


But the towers were built far stronger than the model right? If a model weaker than than the towers could not completely collapse, then logic would suggest a stronger one also wouldn't. That is called deduction, and is part of the scientific process.


You also seem to assume that the entire model must be crushed in order to facilitate a complete collapse. This is also not true in relation to the towers, because as is clearly visible from the debris pile, there was a significant amount of debris that wasn't crushed or particularly broken. It simply had its bolt connections snapped off or sheared off.


Hmm no that is not true, there are plenty of pics of core columns that were broken at their welds, and were bent like pretzels with no cracking, which means the were extremely hot when they bent. The building did not simply collapse because bolts sheared. The debris pile was no higher than the lobby levels, and a little off topic but you all claim WTC 7 did not land in its footprint, yet almost 100% of the rubble is. It is obvious the towers collapse did not do the same thing. A little contradictory there huh?


Now think about that for a second. Wouldn't a more accurate model allow for buckling and point breaking? Without many of the aspects that allowed for the tower to collapse, you have inadvertently strengthened your model beyond anything reasonable. This is why you are wrong, and hopefully I've made the case clear. I know you have a knack for ignoring people and then laughing at them.


How does not allowing buckling, and point breaking, make his model stronger? Twisted logic mate. You seem to have this assumption that bolts are a week point, not true...


Bolts are used in construction when great strength is required or when the work under construction must be frequently disassembled. Their use usually implies the use of nuts for fastening and, sometimes, the use of washers to protect the surface of the material they are used to fasten. Bolts are selected for application to speci­fic requirements in terms of length, diameter, threads, style of head, and type. Proper selection of head style and type of bolt results in good appearance as well as good construction. The use of washers between the nut and a wood surface or between both the nut and the head and their opposing surfaces helps you avoid marring the surfaces and permits additional torque in tightening.




Obviously far more energy going on there than gravity. It takes far more energy than gravity to bend massive steel columns like that. Bolts did break, but the energy level was far beyond what was needed to do that. Where did that energy come from? Not gravity that is for sure. You could drop one of theses lengths of steel from the top of the towers, and it will not bend like that when it hits the ground.


edit on 11/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



But the towers were built far stronger than the model right? If a model weaker than than the towers could not completely collapse, then logic would suggest a stronger one also wouldn't. That is called deduction, and is part of the scientific process.

No, that is called making assumptions and is a very important part of creating logical fallacies.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

No, that is called making assumptions and is a very important part of creating logical fallacies.


No, its not an assumption, it is a logical deduction. If you understand physics you would understand why.

That is how testing is done. Make a model, and if it works the way it is required to, then you will know if you build it to be more redundant then it will logically be stronger.

I think you will agree the towers were build to be far more redundant than Psik's model?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hooper


No, its not an assumption, it is a logical deduction. If you understand physics you would understand why.
That is how testing is done. Make a model, and if it works the way it is required to, then you will know if you build it to be more redundant then it will logically be stronger.

Nope, you are assuming the model is weaker than actual. Prove the model is weaker. Don't forget that silly model had a huge broomhandle rammed down the middel. If you understood basic science you would understand that you have to prove both sides of the equation. Prove the model is weaker. Don't foregt to factor in the broomhandle.

I think you will agree the towers were build to be far more redundant than Psik's model?

I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?


My, how observant you are.

A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.

psik



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?


My, how observant you are.

A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.

psik


Please, please prove how you resolved your model with square-cube law by inserting a broomhandle in the middle. This is getting pretty funny. While your at it you keeping telling everyone that you made your model "as weak as possible" when are we going to see proof of this statement.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK



Obviously far more energy going on there than gravity. It takes far more energy than gravity to bend massive steel columns like that. Bolts did break, but the energy level was far beyond what was needed to do that. Where did that energy come from? Not gravity that is for sure. You could drop one of theses lengths of steel from the top of the towers, and it will not bend like that when it hits the ground.


Gravity is not energy, it's a force.



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WASTYT

Gravity is not energy, it's a force.


And your point is?

I know it's a force. When a force is applied to something, and that something moves then there is work done, energy. Energy had to be available to collapse the towers, and according to the OS only the force of gravity was causing the collapse. Not enough energy could be imparted to the towers by the force of gravity to overcome resistance. If it could the towers would have been very unstable. But in reality buildings like that are designed to be able to hold their own weight, plus the working loads over their lifetime, by at least 3 (factor of safety).


Although no definite or universal rules can be given , if a factor of safety needs to be determined or established, the following circumstances should be taken into account in its selection:

When the ultimate strength of the material is known within narrow limits, as for structural steel for which tests of samples have been made, when the load is entirely a steady one of a known value a factor of safety should be adopted is 3.

www.engineersedge.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK



It takes far more energy than gravity to bend massive steel columns like that.


So tell me Truther, exactly what kind of energy did they use to bend that core column ? Did they use thermite or explosives ? Where were the planted in relation to the bend ?



posted on Nov, 22 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
I was in the towers, I don't remember seeing a huge wood dowel 100' in diameter shoved in the middle. Do you have some photos?


My, how observant you are.

A pity you can't comprehend the square-cube law.

psik


Please, please prove how you resolved your model with square-cube law by inserting a broomhandle in the middle. This is getting pretty funny. While your at it you keeping telling everyone that you made your model "as weak as possible" when are we going to see proof of this statement.


Since the dowel didn't move it is totally irrelevant to the collapse. But the paper loops are so weak that the dowel has to be there to keep the washers and paper loops from falling over. But the paper loops were still strong enough to support the static load and arrest the dynamic load. But supposedly this skyscraper that could withstand 100 mph winds and hold its static load could have 90+stories completely collapsed by 15 stories in less than 30 seconds.



Yeah the physics profession needs to explain not demanding distributions of steel and concrete in 2002 and letting this crap drag on and on.

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

So tell me Truther, exactly what kind of energy did they use to bend that core column ? Did they use thermite or explosives ? Where were the planted in relation to the bend ?


Well OSer, that is the big question isn't it?

What do you think caused it? Do you really think simply falling from gravity could do that? How do you explain the bending with no cracking of the steel? How did it get hot enough to bend without cracking along the bending edge?

I fail to really understand your point here? The reason the OS is in question is because of things like this, if there was an answer there wouldn't be a question would there?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Since the dowel didn't move it is totally irrelevant to the collapse.

Except it stopped the collapse.

But the paper loops are so weak that the dowel has to be there to keep the washers and paper loops from falling over.

So the dowel is holding up the "model" yet the dowel didn't move when the model moved. Sorry, there's a little disconnect there. Also, please provide proof that the model is "so weak". That statement is meaningless.

But the paper loops were still strong enough to support the static load and arrest the dynamic load.

No, the dowel arrested the effect of the dynaminc load prohibiting the collapse. Again, you are caught up in this "crush" loop. All you do is go on about things being squashed or flattened. That's not what happened on 9/11/2001.

But supposedly this skyscraper that could withstand 100 mph winds and hold its static load could have 90+stories completely collapsed by 15 stories in less than 30 seconds.

Yep, that's it. It collapsed. Not squashed, pulverized, flattened, turned to dust, but collapsed. The things that held the building together failed under the load. Everyone understands this, maybe someday you will too.

Yeah the physics profession needs to explain not demanding distributions of steel and concrete in 2002 and letting this crap drag on and on.

This has not dragged on and on. Its all over. You're wrong.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Since the dowel didn't move it is totally irrelevant to the collapse.

Except it stopped the collapse.


The dowel did not stop the collapse. The energy used up crushing paper loops stopped the collapse.

So the fact that we are not getting any data on the amount of energy necessary to crush each LEVEL of the core is significant to this 9/11 business not being resolved. And since the amount of steel in the core had to increase down the building the amount of energy had to increase.

So the physics profession has been extremely lax in not pointing out the obvious for a decade.

psik



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join