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: 78
34
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
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.


Yes. Yes, I do need proof for everything. I refuse to take anything anyone says on faith, be it from the "OS" or from the Truth Movement side of things. If you make the claim that these things can't bend that way then it is up to you to prove that claim. Your downright refusal is interesting, and I love the way you post those pictures of bent columns as if that is proof of your claim. You just said, "I'm right because I'm right."

That is no basis for accusations of murder. That is no basis for deciding that a building must have been demolished. There are a lot of points about 9/11 that are questionable. Focus on the real stuff, not this distracting crap about physics acting strange that day. It doesn't matter whether explosives were or weren't used when it comes to physics. Physics will still be in effect. Why on Earth would a demolition team want to heat up the box columns anyway? We're talking a great deal of tons of weight pushing down on these at an angle during collapse. If that's not enough to bend steel, then I'm a lizard.




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

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.




Yes, ridicule and lies are great substitutes for physics. They only work on stupid people. Unfortunately there are lots of them. That is why this crap has dragged on for TEN YEARS.

psik



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Why can't I use paper supports, like you did?
You are implying I don't understand the square-cube law. It is because of that law that a weaker material than what was in the WTC has to be used.

So PROVE I am wrong. Let's see you use something other than paper.

I don't care if you use paper though. Let's see you build a model that can support its static load and yet completely collapse due to the dynamic load created by its top 15%.

psik



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Yes, ridicule and lies are great substitutes for physics.

Ditto

They only work on stupid people.

There's the ridicule.

Unfortunately there are lots of them.

And a little more ridicule for good measure.

That is why this crap has dragged on for TEN YEARS

No. It has not dragged on. Its over. All done. Real professionals with a real understanding of the physical world have closely examined the issue and satisfactorily explained the events of that day. They have accounted for what was observed. There is no more debate except in the rarified environment of internet conspiracy forums. The engineering has been accounted for, as has the physics. You are not smarter than everyone else in the world and they are not all "in on it", its that simple.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Yes, ridicule and lies are great substitutes for physics.

Ditto


So where is your model that can completely collapse?

Are you saying my models defies the laws of physics?

psik
edit on 24-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No. It has not dragged on. Its over. All done. Real professionals with a real understanding of the physical world have closely examined the issue and satisfactorily explained the events of that day. They have accounted for what was observed. There is no more debate except in the rarified environment of internet conspiracy forums. The engineering has been accounted for, as has the physics. You are not smarter than everyone else in the world and they are not all "in on it", its that simple.


That is obviously not true and you know it, otherwise why would you be here everyday ready to jump on any 911 post?

Or do you just like wasting your time on something that is over? I just simply don't see the point? In fact it's you, and your buddies, that keep this discussion going, so it's obvioulsy not over for you, is it?

You just want other people to think its over, a none issue. In fact that is your sole reason for being here isn't it? To make people reading this discussion think it's a none-issue, not worth investigating further. It's why you contradict yourself, ignore evidence and facts, because it doesn't matter. Your target area is the casual reader, the ones that do not follow the debate, and see the continual inconsistencies in your claims.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So where is your model that can completely collapse?

You already built it, remember? You said if you take the broomhandle out of the middle the loops deform and the whole thing collapses. Good job!

Are you saying my models defies the laws of physics?

No your models are fine. Its the principle thats irrelevant.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



That is obviously not true and you know it, otherwise why would you be here everyday ready to jump on any 911 post?

I know its a very sensitive subject. If you finally concede that the issue is settled law, which it is, then you are burdened with presenting affirmative proof of the existence of a conspiracy, your incredulity will no longer suffice for an argument and as you well know there is no proof of anything except what everyone already knows.

Or do you just like wasting your time on something that is over? I just simply don't see the point? In fact it's you, and your buddies, that keep this discussion going, so it's obvioulsy not over for you, is it?

No, its over. This is just a little bit entertainment.

You just want other people to think its over, a none issue.

Well, actually saying "its over" is an overstatement. Its a never was. I don't want people to think its a non-issue, its a non-issue because people don't even think about these conspiracies.

In fact that is your sole reason for being here isn't it? To make people reading this discussion think it's a none-issue, not worth investigating further.

Actually, they already think that.

It's why you contradict yourself, ignore evidence and facts, because it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because all the facts are in and the evidence tells us exactly what you don't want to hear. That on 9/11/2001 19 men, motivated by religion and nationalism hijacked 4 planes and crashed them killing thousands and causing massive damage to some iconic structure on the east coast of the USA.

Your target area is the casual reader, the ones that do not follow the debate, and see the continual inconsistencies in your claims.

If that were so then there would be a debate in the wider world, and there's not. There's not even passing interest in these claims of controlled demolition and staged scenes.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So where is your model that can completely collapse?

You already built it, remember? You said if you take the broomhandle out of the middle the loops deform and the whole thing collapses. Good job!

Are you saying my models defies the laws of physics?

No your models are fine. Its the principle thats irrelevant.


So you don't comprehend the difference between falling over and collapsing straight down.

Yeah, that is about what I expect from you.

psik



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So you don't comprehend the difference between falling over and collapsing straight down.
Yeah, that is about what I expect from you.

No wait, collapse? I thought everything was "crushed"? Now you admit that the building collapsed and was not crushed. I guess its back to model building bench for you!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So you don't comprehend the difference between falling over and collapsing straight down.
Yeah, that is about what I expect from you.

No wait, collapse? I thought everything was "crushed"? Now you admit that the building collapsed and was not crushed. I guess its back to model building bench for you!


You think? Surely you jest!


In order for a straight down collapse to occur the support structure underneath the falling top portion would have to be CRUSHED.

But that would require energy. So why aren't the people who claim a COMPLETE collapse happened telling us the distribution of steel and the amount of energy required at EVERY LEVEL? Or why haven't they built a physical model that can completely collapse?

I have demostrated that a straight down collapse with less than 15% of the top should arrest.

www.youtube.com...

psik



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So you don't comprehend the difference between falling over and collapsing straight down.
Yeah, that is about what I expect from you.

No wait, collapse? I thought everything was "crushed"? Now you admit that the building collapsed and was not crushed. I guess its back to model building bench for you!


You think? Surely you jest!


In order for a straight down collapse to occur the support structure underneath the falling top portion would have to be CRUSHED.

But that would require energy. So why aren't the people who claim a COMPLETE collapse happened telling us the distribution of steel and the amount of energy required at EVERY LEVEL? Or why haven't they built a physical model that can completely collapse?

I have demostrated that a straight down collapse with less than 15% of the top should arrest.

www.youtube.com...

psik


The video is back. Awesome. Psik, that is a 6th grade Physics experiment, not a recreation of what happened on 9/11. You perceive it to be correct because in your mind it is. However, it does not hold a candle to the research that has been done, and independently.

www.cs.purdue.edu...

Please look at the time, and effort, put into this which gives the reason it started and why it finished. 1000's of hours of computing and research far out weigh some washers and a few dowel rods.

Now, to find the energy, it is not that hard. Use some common science knowledge. If something is supported, and then it is not, that energy has to be converted into something, right? I mean, if that was not correct, Jenga would not be a very fun game. So, you have 100's of tons of steel and materials that are suddenly not supported and you think that the stored energy that is released is not enough to destroy what is underneath? This is not a 3g washer in your living room.

The outside energy that was introduced came from this. The initiating event. There is NO magic. NO lasers. NO explosives.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


You really think this is an accurate representation of the towers, or even what happened?



Really?



BTW you've been told this before, psik's model is not a representation of the towers, but a demonstration of physics laws. Big difference that obviously goes right over your head, like all the other physics we discus.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by esdad71
 


You really think this is an accurate representation of the towers, or even what happened?



Really?



BTW you've been told this before, psik's model is not a representation of the towers, but a demonstration of physics laws. Big difference that obviously goes right over your head, like all the other physics we discus.


So you give a link to the start of the project, not the end. Like how you all constantly bring up Bazant.

Here, use this one.

www.youtube.com...

As far as you telling me anything, I believe you are mistaken. In fact, I know you are. You have never told or shown me anything regarding science ANOK. Try as you might you just end of contradicting yourself or not returning to the conversation.

Why would someone need a model describing a basic law of physics to hold a conversation about 9/11 anyways? That is like showing a neurosurgeon you can take blood pressure and thinking you can hold a conversation about deciphering an MRI. That model, honestly, has dick to do with 9/11. It is, as said before, a secondary school science experiment that would get a low B.

Ke anyone?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I don't mean to be rude, but you know that's a simulation of the pentagon, right? Just clearing that up.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

edit on 14-12-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So you don't comprehend the difference between falling over and collapsing straight down.
Yeah, that is about what I expect from you.

No wait, collapse? I thought everything was "crushed"? Now you admit that the building collapsed and was not crushed. I guess its back to model building bench for you!


You think? Surely you jest!


In order for a straight down collapse to occur the support structure underneath the falling top portion would have to be CRUSHED.

But that would require energy. So why aren't the people who claim a COMPLETE collapse happened telling us the distribution of steel and the amount of energy required at EVERY LEVEL? Or why haven't they built a physical model that can completely collapse?

I have demostrated that a straight down collapse with less than 15% of the top should arrest.

www.youtube.com...

psik


The video is back. Awesome. Psik, that is a 6th grade Physics experiment, not a recreation of what happened on 9/11. You perceive it to be correct because in your mind it is. However, it does not hold a candle to the research that has been done, and independently.

www.cs.purdue.edu...

Please look at the time, and effort, put into this which gives the reason it started and why it finished. 1000's of hours of computing and research far out weigh some washers and a few dowel rods.

Now, to find the energy, it is not that hard. Use some common science knowledge. If something is supported, and then it is not, that energy has to be converted into something, right? I mean, if that was not correct, Jenga would not be a very fun game. So, you have 100's of tons of steel and materials that are suddenly not supported and you think that the stored energy that is released is not enough to destroy what is underneath? This is not a 3g washer in your living room.

The outside energy that was introduced came from this. The initiating event. There is NO magic. NO lasers. NO explosives.


The Purdue simulation of the north tower is nothing but the plane impact and says noting about any collapse. And they got the impact simulation wrong. The NIST documents the south tower deflecting due to the impact and yet the core columns in the Purdue simulation do not move. That is really DUMB.

Jenga components can be reused again and again. No energy is expended crushing the pieces. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop in my model and it cannot be reused. Are you saying components were not damaged in the collapse of the north tower?

psik



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I am discussing degree of applicability of a test. Yours does not apply. It just shows a law of physics. Sorry to bust your balls on it because i know it took alot to do it. I just do not see how it helps show why the towers could not have collapsed they way they did. I applaud you effort though.


The other video howver helps to show the damage that occurred at point of impact. Something solid that can be used to show the progressive weakening and eventual collapse. Look up viscoelastic dampers. That was the weak point.



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am discussing degree of applicability of a test. Yours does not apply. It just shows a law of physics. Sorry to bust your balls on it because i know it took alot to do it. I just do not see how it helps show why the towers could not have collapsed they way they did. I applaud you effort though.


The other video howver helps to show the damage that occurred at point of impact. Something solid that can be used to show the progressive weakening and eventual collapse. Look up viscoelastic dampers. That was the weak point.


You can believe you "busted my balls" all you want. No one has explained how the north tower came down in less than 18 seconds.

A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?

A computer simulation based on nothing but the conservation of momentum with 110 masses just floating in the air by magic takes TWELVE SECONDS with all of the masses the same. If the masses increase toward the bottom then that SLOWS IT DOWN. So how could a real building come down in less than 18 seconds when the supports had to be destroyed from above? People who believe such nonsense simply can't think in terms of the actual physics and then want to complain about my model but no one has built a model that can actually collapse completely. What engineering school has even claimed to try?

psik



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


OK. Then why have you not done the simple equation? Show us. Let us see if we understand you. You should not need an engineering school like you said.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 75  76  77    79  80  81 >>

log in

join