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: 77
34
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



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

Nope, sorry. As everyone can easily see your "model" would have fallen apart like the twin towers if not for the big broomhandle. Big fail.

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.

Sorry, again the core wasn't "crushed".

And since the amount of steel in the core had to increase down the building the amount of energy had to increase.

Nope, again you miss the point. Its real easy. You don't need to crush every element of a structure to get to stop standing you only need to break the connections that hold them together. Before any structure can stand it must first hold itself together.

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

The physics profession's mission does not include pointing out your simple misunderstandings about how the physical world works.




posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:27 AM
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


OMG. this is going in the sig. I think somebody needs a lesson on the 'square peg' law. No. The square cube law does not tell us why you put that dowel in the model.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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?


Actually, bending steel girders such as the one you referenced doesn't require heat.

Turns out that one of the most common (and economical) ways to bend steal beams is by a process called rolling, or "cold-bending". Also known as beam cambering.


Rolling (cold bending) is the typical method of curving steel for con- struction and is usually the most economical for rolling members with tighter radii. A steel member is placed in a machine and curved be- tween three rolls. Cold bending may also be called “pyramid rolling” because of the three rolls’ pyramid arrangement.

www.modernsteel.com...

Basically the steel beam can be bent by simply applying force. No heat required. Just plenty of stress and strain. A cambering machine can apply up to 800 tons of stress to bend a steel beam.
www.thefabricator.com...

So are you really implying that the brute forces generated by the collapse of an enormous section of building wouldn't be enough to bend a steel girder?

How many tons of pressure do you think that steel column of yours was under as a massive steel structure came crashing down on it?

Probably a little more than 800 tons....



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by WASTYT
Actually, bending steel girders such as the one you referenced doesn't require heat.

Turns out that one of the most common (and economical) ways to bend steal beams is by a process called rolling, or "cold-bending". Also known as beam cambering.


When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.

Cold bending is done with flat sheets of steel, not box columns.


So are you really implying that the brute forces generated by the collapse of an enormous section of building wouldn't be enough to bend a steel girder?


What brute force? I though it was just gravity? Gravity is not a 'brute force', it is in fact a very weak force.


How many tons of pressure do you think that steel column of yours was under as a massive steel structure came crashing down on it?

Probably a little more than 800 tons....


Not enough to bend steel box columns with no cracking. Unless they were heated up of course. Where do you get 800 tons from? No part of the building had the whole building fall on it, it was too spread around.

Are you telling me that dropping a steel box column from the height of the towers would cause it to bend like a pretzel?


edit on 11/23/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.


Proof, please? I would be interested in seeing your source of information. If it is purely from the conspiracy toting folk, then it might not be true. I want to see a situation where a box column (or similar enough piece of metal) cracks along the bending edge.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.


Proof, please? I would be interested in seeing your source of information. If it is purely from the conspiracy toting folk, then it might not be true. I want to see a situation where a box column (or similar enough piece of metal) cracks along the bending edge.


Do you need proof of everything?

I really don't care if you believe me or not anymore. The fact that you have to question points like this just shows the level of this discussion. I'd like to get past having to prove every detail to those who do not have the experience to know basic stuff like this.

Where is your proof a box column falling from gravity can bend like that in the first place?

Look at these...




It takes an extreme amount of force to do that.

Columns showing the same end damage...




That looks more like it was done with explosives than gravity to me.

source; www.sharpprintinginc.com...:22



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
When a large steel box column bends without heat it will crack along the bending edge. There is no sign of that.

Another view of the same column




The tension side of that bent column is practically shredded. How can you say there is no sign of cracking?


Originally posted by ANOK
Cold bending is done with flat sheets of steel, not box columns.



Deformations in hollow structural section (HSS) members subjected to cold-bending M.M. Seddeik, J.B. Kennedy Purchase Department of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B 3P4 Received 17 July 1985; revised 10 September 1986; Available online 26 February 2003. Abstract The relation between the radius of bend and the distortions in cold-bent HSS steel members is investigated. The variational principle of the total potential energy is adopted to predict this relationship, accounting for both geometric and material non-linearities. A method is proposed to model the cold-bending rolling process. Based on the results from the analytical solution empirical relations in the form of best-fit equations are deduced for ready use. Results are compared to those from 108 tests on 27 different HSS profiles.


source.

HSS is a structural steel designation for rectangular tube members, so, I think it's documented that you're wrong to say that cold bending is only done on flat sheets.


Originally posted by ANOK
What brute force? I though it was just gravity? Gravity is not a 'brute force', it is in fact a very weak force.


Just LOL. Guess it depends on the mass of the two objects affected.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Those are box columns from the twin towers, ANOK. You just said there was no sign of this. Then when asked for evidence that we should expect to see it, you produce evidence contrary to your position of just a few posts ago!

What is going on here?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

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

Nope, sorry. As everyone can easily see your "model" would have fallen apart like the twin towers if not for the big broomhandle. Big fail.


I long ago admitted that the the paper loops and washers would fall over without the dowel.

It is not my fault that all of the "everyones" that you hang out with share your vast intellectual capacity.

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

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


OMG. this is going in the sig. I think somebody needs a lesson on the 'square peg' law. No. The square cube law does not tell us why you put that dowel in the model.


The square-cube law dictates how weak the paper loops must be for a model that small and still be as weak as possible. That weakness dictates the need for the dowel,

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I long ago admitted that the the paper loops and washers would fall over without the dowel.

I think the word your're looking for is "collapse", you know, like the world trade center towers. Sound familiar?

It is not my fault that all of the "everyones" that you hang out with share your vast intellectual capacity.

No its not your fault. You should try hanging out with people that would challenge you a little bit....or at all.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

I long ago admitted that the the paper loops and washers would fall over without the dowel.

I think the word your're looking for is "collapse", you know, like the world trade center towers. Sound familiar?


No, your thinking is meaningless. I tested stacking the loops and washers without the dowel,

The stack leans. The paper loops at the bottom get crushed on one side and the whole thing falls over.

I don't just TALK. I TEST things.

Some people call it PHYSICS. Strength of material is a factor also. Even physicists should have been able to figure out TEN YEARS AGO that skyscrapers had to have more steel toward the bottom to hold themselves up. So the fact that they were not making a big deal about having that information then is pretty damning. Now they would need to rewrite history like in 1984. (that is a book, George Orwell)

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Right. Keep it rolling. Keep pretending.

Fake it 'til you make it, I guess.

For everybody else, Wikipedia has a swell introduction to the square cube law and its implication for engineering.

It's a fascinating and handy concept to have in your toolbelts. It's definitely relevant to the design and performance of scaled models, but psik's model is not one of these.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Right. Keep it rolling. Keep pretending.

Fake it 'til you make it, I guess.

For everybody else, Wikipedia has a swell introduction to the square cube law and its implication for engineering.

It's a fascinating and handy concept to have in your toolbelts. It's definitely relevant to the design and performance of scaled models, but psik's model is not one of these.


Talk is cheap.

What is stopping you from building a model with steel supports and seeing if you can make it completely collapse?

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



No, your thinking is meaningless. I tested stacking the loops and washers without the dowel,
The stack leans. The paper loops at the bottom get crushed on one side and the whole thing falls over.

Really? Did you just write that? The paper loops at the bottom get crushed and the whole thing falls over? And you don't think that has any significance.

I don't just TALK. I TEST things.

Maybe a little less "testing" and a little more thinking is in order.

Some people call it PHYSICS.

No, just you.

Strength of material is a factor also.

Which you admit that you have no idea how strong or weak your materials are, think about that.

Even physicists should have been able to figure out TEN YEARS AGO that skyscrapers had to have more steel toward the bottom to hold themselves up.

Well, very few physicists are involved in building design so I doubt it is of much concern to them. Regardless, you still have not gotten beyond the "crush" thing yet so until you can think your way out of that box talking about physics is a waste of time.

So the fact that they were not making a big deal about having that information then is pretty damning. Now they would need to rewrite history like in 1984. (that is a book, George Orwell)

Or the fact is that you're wrong about your personal view of the physics of building construction and you're living in your own personal little 1984.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Maybe a little less "testing" and a little more thinking is in order.


You can think about bullsh# that can't happen all you want.

In order to KNOW whether it might happen you need to TEST.

psik



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why can't I use paper supports, like you did?



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You can think about bullsh# that can't happen all you want.
In order to KNOW whether it might happen you need to TEST.

You really need to think about your test. What is it that you are really testing? What does your test real prove? Real phycisist think more than they test. Its not what your KNOW its what you learn that counts. All you know is how those loops with those washers impaled on that broomstick react. But what did you learn? I suspect little to nothing as you still insist on the data that is readily available in a report that you refuse to read. I think you are afraid of learning.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why can't I use paper supports, like you did?


No, no you have to build a real model. Only physicist like psik get to use copy paper loops tape together, broomhandles and stovebolt washers and pretend its the world trade center and then declare every engineer and physicist in the world incompetent becuase they aren't asking for the distribution of office furniture and ceiling tiles on every level.



posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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


No not really. I know its from the force of the collapse that did it. Nothing too sinister about 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?


Ah yes because controlled demolition cutter charges are not suppose to cut steel?
Only dent em enough to collapse? Hell all this time I thought cutter charges are suppose to cut the steel by blasting it apart. Or wait, is this some sort of new demolition method where they use lots and lost of explosives just close enough to bend the steel on detonation to knock it all down. Is that what you think? Or no wait, is it that magical thermite that some how now can bend steel while its vertical?


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?


no sorry chief, the "OS" (whatever that is) not in question. What is in question is the sanity regarding this black hole we call the "Truth Movement" which can't even get one line of facts straight and stick to one story or method without contradicting everything else it ever brings up.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join