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: 81
34
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.

I can.


So what collapse time did you get?

psik


Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

What's the evidence for that?


Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik


Touch a nerve did I?

Is it not an assumption on your part to say that explosives brought down the towers when there is absolutely no evidence of that. None. And where's the evidence that explosives, had they been used, would've sped up the collapse? Your physics has misguided you it seems. But perhaps you can add some firecrackers to your model to see what would happen. If anything it would be fun to see you blow it to smithereens.

And if I missed it, please point me to the page where you disputed the NIST report bullet by bullet on how the collapse initiated and then progressed. Then please show how explosives accounted for it otherwise. Really I would like to read it.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I thought you said that model is not meant to model what would happen in a collapse? You made that very clear when it was proven in the past to be useless when considering the mechanics of the tower collapses.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.

I can.


So what collapse time did you get?

psik


Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??

What's the evidence for that?


Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?

psik


Touch a nerve did I?

Is it not an assumption on your part to say that explosives brought down the towers when there is absolutely no evidence of that. None. And where's the evidence that explosives, had they been used, would've sped up the collapse? Your physics has misguided you it seems. But perhaps you can add some firecrackers to your model to see what would happen. If anything it would be fun to see you blow it to smithereens.

And if I missed it, please point me to the page where you disputed the NIST report bullet by bullet on how the collapse initiated and then progressed. Then please show how explosives accounted for it otherwise. Really I would like to read it.


You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.

Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.

psik



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I thought you said that model is not meant to model what would happen in a collapse? You made that very clear when it was proven in the past to be useless when considering the mechanics of the tower collapses.


It is modeling a gravitational collapse in a self supporting structure.

Are you saying it is not self supporting or subject to gravity? It can't be a model of the towers because it is not a tube-in-tube structure.

No one can build a reasonable model of that if they do not know the strength of the connections to the floor relative to the weight of the floors outside the core. So have you seen that data anywhere?

psik



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Then why did you build your model. Your own words say it is worthless...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Then why did you build your model. Your own words say it is worthless...


So you either can't think or can't read. The core was not really a tube though the design is called that. The supposed collapse of a tube-in-tube structure would still be mass from above trying to force down mass supported from below which is what my model consists of.

You people think words control physics which is incapable of caring about words. Words can only influence the thinking of the weak minded, hence all of this psychological bullsh#.

psik



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So what collapse time did you get?

psik

Just under 12 seconds for failure above 98th floor with infinite compaction, pretty much what you got.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.

Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.

psik


Step up to the plate and take a stand already. You're just like all the other truthers. Claim this couldn't happen, and claim that couldn't happen, but you won't actually specify how it happened. Typical truther bs.

It wasn't explosives? Then what the hell was it?

If you can't offer up a hypothesis then perhaps you can stop posting your truther physics nonsense.

You're not smarter then the engineering schools you keep bashing. It's tired



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.

Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.

psik


Step up to the plate and take a stand already. You're just like all the other truthers. Claim this couldn't happen, and claim that couldn't happen, but you won't actually specify how it happened. Typical truther bs.

It wasn't explosives? Then what the hell was it?

If you can't offer up a hypothesis then perhaps you can stop posting your truther physics nonsense.

You're not smarter then the engineering schools you keep bashing. It's tired


NIST didn't test for explosive residues. The majority of the physical evidence is on the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. When the physical evidence is tested for explosive residues by multiple independent experts we can put an end to this.
I suggest an Occupation of the Fresh Kills Landfill. Evidence to be dug up with the oversight of wtcfamiliesforproperburial. Can anyone tell me what objection they have to this suggestion? Obviously some people are making money one way or another from the unresolved debate. Solving the case would lead to a drop in T shirt and DVD sales for example. Those who are paid to engage in debate and 'debunking' would have to find another job. The perpetrators may object on the grounds that they don't want to go down in history as the lowest life form on the planet. We could identify three separate groups of profiteers by asking who objects to this simple solution. Some buckets and spades and the cost of the lab testing seems like a fair price to pay for the answers we want.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So what collapse time did you get?

psik

Just under 12 seconds for failure above 98th floor with infinite compaction, pretty much what you got.


And that is even without air resistance. LOL

So if all of those masses had to have physical supports, keeping the total mass the same then in the REAL WORLD the structure would have to get heavier toward the bottom and energy would have to be expended destroying the supports. So do you really believe the structure could come down in less than 30 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?

psik



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.

Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.

psik


Step up to the plate and take a stand already. You're just like all the other truthers. Claim this couldn't happen, and claim that couldn't happen, but you won't actually specify how it happened. Typical truther bs.

It wasn't explosives? Then what the hell was it?

If you can't offer up a hypothesis then perhaps you can stop posting your truther physics nonsense.

You're not smarter then the engineering schools you keep bashing. It's tired


So which engineering school has built a self supporting physical model that can completely collapse?

It is not my fault that you need authority to tell you what to think and can't figure out the obvious questions. It is grade school physics dude. What is stopping you from building my model and testing it yourself? Oh, I know. You doubt your own intelligence so you expect everyone else to do the same.

It is not my fault that the Purdue simulation has an obvious flaw that grade school kids should understand.

I didn't say it was not explosives. I just didn't say what it was. I wasn't there on 9/11. You can find plenty of videos with witnesses talking about hearing explosions and videos with sounds of explosions but you want to ignore those too so why should I talk about explosives? I can't prove anything about them. But physics is still physics and skyscrapers have to hold themselves up.

psik
edit on 17-12-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So what collapse time did you get?

psik

Just under 12 seconds for failure above 98th floor with infinite compaction, pretty much what you got.


And that is even without air resistance. LOL

So if all of those masses had to have physical supports, keeping the total mass the same then in the REAL WORLD the structure would have to get heavier toward the bottom and energy would have to be expended destroying the supports. So do you really believe the structure could come down in less than 30 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?

psik

Can I add to the elimination of the intensely hot fire argument?
As far as I'm aware there is no evidence, apart from the videos of what appears to be a stream of molten metal, indicating intensely hot pre-collapse fires. NIST have words asserting the fires became intensely hot. They also have computer simulations. If the fires were really that hot physical evidence would have been available and the photographs and videos would show the intense heat. The steel from the impact zones examined by NIST did not indicate intensely hot fires. Words and simulations can be arranged in any way one chooses. They aren't proof. I haven't seen any evidence of intensely hot pre-collapse fires. All the evidence indicates the fires were exactly as would be expected in the circumstances.
This all fits with the plan being for both towers to detonate upon impact. When this failed, twice, the best story they could come up with was "The fires were intensely hot, but somehow the photographs, video and the physical evidence didn't show that, so here's an assertion and a brightly coloured simulation."
Who remembers the suggestions in the media soon after the event claiming the possibility that baggage handlers were involved? If the towers had detonated on impact would the story have been, "Baggage handlers smuggled bombs into the holds." Possibly more credible than the ridiculous intensely hot fire story.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is not my fault that you need authority to tell you what to think and can't figure out the obvious questions. It is grade school physics dude. What is stopping you from building my model and testing it yourself? Oh, I know. You doubt your own intelligence so you expect everyone else to do the same.


Oh come on- More typical truther bs. You're all the same you people. So predictable with your responses. When pinned in a corner you have to resort to bashing the intelligence of those who disagree with you. Way to keep the movement going strong.



I didn't say it was not explosives. I just didn't say what it was. I wasn't there on 9/11. You can find plenty of videos with witnesses talking about hearing explosions and videos with sounds of explosions but you want to ignore those too so why should I talk about explosives? I can't prove anything about them. But physics is still physics and skyscrapers have to hold themselves up.


Step up to the plate and offer a real hypothesis on what it was. Seems you think it was explosives and the evidence of such is in the videos. Well, my retort is that the handful of explosions heard are not necessarily indicative of explosives. So what else ya got for concrete evidence?

Have you actually seen and listened to what a real demolition of a steel framed building is like?

If not, then I'd invite you to see here how loud the explosions are and how many there are before the building even starts to collapse. Why isn't this similar situation at all evident in any videos of the WTC collapses? How many hundreds of charges would've been needed to do it? How many hundreds of explosions should we have heard before the collapses?

And I'm sorry, physics is not physics on these forums. It's just people with their own understanding of physics. Those buildings held themselves up after the initial impacts. And they held themselves up the all those years leading up to 9/11/01. So they did there job, until of course they ultimately became weakened by the severe damage caused by the planes that day.

Collapse initiation for both buildings occurred right at or near the point of impact. All videos confirm this. So that means explosives would've had to have been placed and subsequently detonated, first, in the impact zones. How could this have been done? How did the airplanes not compromise all the wiring and charges? How does a demo occur with explosives from the top down? That's never been done before afaik.

Such simple questions that not one damn truther has ever satisfactorily answered or paid any attention to. But keep spewing on about your physics how all the engineering schools who you believe are not as smart as you are all in on it. And keep ignoring the real conspiracy in all this...



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Nice reply.

I have spent alot of time looking into the structural integrity of the towers........

It is to the point where I try not to visit these threads anymore.......

I really love how everybody rewords "physics" to explain what they want to say.........

Physics can and does explain how the buildings went down...........The truthers do not want to hear it.....at all...



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So they did there job, until of course they ultimately became weakened by the severe damage caused by the planes that day.


So that is your explanation of the physics?


Collapse initiation for both buildings occurred right at or near the point of impact. All videos confirm this. So that means explosives would've had to have been placed and subsequently detonated, first, in the impact zones. How could this have been done? How did the airplanes not compromise all the wiring and charges? How does a demo occur with explosives from the top down? That's never been done before afaik.


Actually all videos confirm the collapse started with the core, and the top section started collapsing independent of the bottom section. It could have been done very easily, and yes it has been done before. Who says there was wiring?


Such simple questions that not one damn truther has ever satisfactorily answered or paid any attention to. But keep spewing on about your physics how all the engineering schools who you believe are not as smart as you are all in on it. And keep ignoring the real conspiracy in all this...


Such simple questions that have no relevance at all.

The answers are in the physics we keep spewing, whether you like it or not. All the engineering schools? We don't have reports from all the engineering schools do we? No, we have crap from a handful of people that leave more questions than answers.

Can you honestly explain how the core collapses? I don't think you can. Just saying it was the planes and fire is not enough to explain the collapsed. Can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? Do you understand why, IF they got hot enough, they would sag? Do you understand 'heat transfer', and the fact that it takes time to transfer the heat of the fire to the steel, and one hour is very little time to transfer enough heat to thousands of tons of steel to make it fail?

You think an hours worth of fire is enough to completely collapse a 110 story building, yet have a hard time conceiving how it could have been done with explosives? Where is the logical thinking?


edit on 12/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Physics can and does explain how the buildings went down...........The truthers do not want to hear it.....at all...


But we have heard it and we disagree. Not agreeing is not ignoring.

We explain why we disagree, that is not ignoring.

You only repeat what you have been told by other people, with no explanations of your own.

Do you really understand physics? You might think you do. Can you explain equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation in the collapses?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
ANOK and psik,

For gods sakes, if you are in this thread you should understand basic physics. #, if you went to high school you should. Why does the truther always do this? You deflect. That;s it. I asked psik a simple question. Why did he build the model? His answer was to explain to me the design of the towers. Really? I know the design I want to know why you made a model that does not represent the way the towers were build at all. Where is your outside support? At least make it similar.

For the last time, will anyone try to answer the questions of "WHERE IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE!!!!!!!" Don't quote BAzant or NIST or FEMA or talk of paint chips....show my some physical evidence or shut up about outside sources.

THe only outside source needed to collapse the way they did was gravity because since the loads changed there was no where else to go. We learn at about 2 if you drop something it will not float...you do not need physics you scholars of silliness.

It is also not about agreeing but understanding. You can not agree with me but if I can prove it different with basic scientific method or laws, then there is no argument. You are simply wrong. It is up to you to show or provide and not speculate. That ship has sailed and actually I think sank a few years ago but here you guys are holding onto the boat waiting for the next batch of high school/college kids to be awakened by the movement. If not for that, this forum would disappear. It is a religion based on your belief in something that is different than what is known as common knowledge. Like a cult.

edit on 17-12-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

NIST didn't test for explosive residues.


Maybe not, but a truther by the name of Steven Jones did. And what did he find exactly? Anything conclusive?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
ANOK and psik,

For gods sakes, if you are in this thread you should understand basic physics. #, if you went to high school you should. Why does the truther always do this? You deflect. That;s it. I asked psik a simple question. Why did he build the model? His answer was to explain to me the design of the towers. Really? I know the design I want to know why you made a model that does not represent the way the towers were build at all. Where is your outside support? At least make it similar.


I told you there was no data specifying the strength of the connections holding the floor outside the core relative to the weight of the floor. In fact someone on this site got the weight of the floor wrong by ignoring the core. I have never seen the weight of all of the trusses and floor pans specified. The concrete slab alone was 600 tons but the idiot ignoring the core said 700 tons.

But then you want to complain about my physics. When two masses impact their relative weights significantly affects what happens. So trying to do an accurate model of the WTC without accurate data is ridiculous.

I have said repeatedly that my model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. That is not how real skyscrapers are designed. I am sure the distribution of mass down my structure does not match the WTC but the washers are ordered so that the heaviest are toward the bottom. But by using paper loops with as weak as possible support for the static load I demonstrate that the dynamic load produced by gravity with that mass is not sufficient to crush all of the loops which had to get stronger toward the bottom to handle the STATIC LOAD.

It is not my fault that you do not have sufficient comprehension of physics to see the similarities to the WTC collapse and yet expect to talk about the physics of 9/11 without accurate data. To bad you have to try to refute grade school physics. I have communicated with someone who said he was 12 years old on 9/11 and he didn't believe airliners could do that either.

9/11 will NEVER go away. The United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.

psik



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So they did there job, until of course they ultimately became weakened by the severe damage caused by the planes that day.


So that is your explanation of the physics?


No, it was my reply to psikey's statement that the buildings should've held themselves up.


Actually all videos confirm the collapse started with the core, and the top section started collapsing independent of the bottom section. It could have been done very easily, and yes it has been done before. Who says there was wiring?


Could've been done very easily!? When have tall buildings ever been demolished from the top down before?

Fact is- you have no idea what it takes to bring down a building with explosives. But you'll just say it doesn't matter right? Sweep it under the rug since you can't offer up a decent hypothesis. Such typical truther BS. You're no expert ANOK, so who are you to say that it's so simple to do? Sheesh- if I were a controlled demo expert I'd be very offended by that.

And you've missed my point, conveniently enough. The sections of building that began to collapse did so at the floors which were the most heavily damaged from the plane impacts. Not anywhere else. In other words ANOK, the collapses initiated right where you'd think they would.

Which means in your world, explosives would've had to have gone off first in the heavily damaged areas, and would've somehow had to have not been breached in any way by the fires for the hour or so it took before the explosives went off. How did the perps know where the most heavily damaged areas would be, thus where to place charges, before it happened? Why wait an hour to do it? Why didn't they just rig it to come down right after the planes struck?


Such simple questions that have no relevance at all.


Keep hand waving. That's all you truther people are good for.


The answers are in the physics we keep spewing, whether you like it or not. .


No they're not, whether you like it or not.


Can you honestly explain how the core collapses?


What does it matter whether or not I can ANOK? You'll just hand wave it. Members much more qualified than me have already explained how it could happen but you've written it off in your own way or just plain ignored it. You don't want to believe that it could have been done the way the NIST report findings have suggested. And nothing anyone will say will change your view.

This is why I ask you and your cohorts to offer up a hypothesis with some concrete evidence supporting the use of explosives or some other "outside energy". Let's argue that, instead of having a pissing contest about the physics of it. Because clearly that conversation is getting us all no where. Wouldn't you agree?

And given the fact that you and your buddy psikey keep harping on the lack of information thats available regarding weight distributions of the material inside then why keep arguing the physics of it. Let's try a different approach...

So again are you, or anyone one of your truther buddies going to offer up a hypothesis as to what the outside energy was and how it did what weakened column failures and gravity could not?? Why are you all so scared to do it?
edit on 17-12-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join