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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 42
17
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Considering the remains of the core after the collapse, that may speak volumes about where the concentration of energy was (the parts which got destroyed completely).

That's the best idea I have, since I'm not really an expert on building collapse dynamics.


But everyone has to be Brainwashed with the word COLLAPSE and then believe it was a collapse that produced those effects. Collapse was IMPOSSIBLE. So physicists are not demanding accurate data on the steel distribution. The energy to do the collapsing would have to be accounted for.

psik




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Considering the remains of the core after the collapse, that may speak volumes about where the concentration of energy was (the parts which got destroyed completely).

That's the best idea I have, since I'm not really an expert on building collapse dynamics.


But everyone has to be Brainwashed with the word COLLAPSE and then believe it was a collapse that produced those effects. Collapse was IMPOSSIBLE. So physicists are not demanding accurate data on the steel distribution. The energy to do the collapsing would have to be accounted for.

psik


Even in a demolition, a collapse happened. Demolitions USE natural collapse dynamics to direct the debris where they want it to.

So collapse was NOT impossible at all. It HAPPENED, in case you missed it. So, we're deciding specifically HOW.

You claim that without explosives that it is impossible, but that is attempting to prove a negative, and will never fly in a scientific environment. Instead, you must prove that explosives were possible to have been in the tower and set off leaving no evidence that they were ever there.

Mainly, you and the other demo-believers must come up with the proof that the bombs were present. Obviously, witnesses hearing explosions is not good enough, since there were enough different types of cameras there, that it should have been caught on them (as evidenced by the cameras which were able to record the explosions from demolitions in the past), and there are a lot of things which "explode" in fires. To a civilian, it would just be explosion. Everything that makes a loud noise and is no longer in one piece counts as an explosion to most people.

Evidence that would support explosives:
*Recovered demolition charge fragments, wiring, small molten pools of cutter charge material.
*Proof of demolition team rigging the building at any point in time. This would include the when and how. How is the most difficult, because with thousands of people going through those towers (including bomb-sniffing dogs), it would be very hard to conceal explosives.
*Video of the explosives going off.

Honestly, if you don't have any of this, then you are riding purely on a horse called speculation.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
First you state:



You claim that without explosives that it is impossible, but that is attempting to prove a negative, and will never fly in a scientific environment.


Then you state:



How is the most difficult, because with thousands of people going through those towers (including bomb-sniffing dogs), it would be very hard to conceal explosives.


So your conclusion is that because it is very difficult to conceal explosives, they did not exist. Is that your idea of something "flying in a scientific environment"?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


He's saying that truthers need to answer the question, "how" in a satisfactory manner that makes sense and has supporting evidence. They never have.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Even in a demolition, a collapse happened. Demolitions USE natural collapse dynamics to direct the debris where they want it to.

So collapse was NOT impossible at all. It HAPPENED, in case you missed it. So, we're deciding specifically HOW.

You claim that without explosives that it is impossible, but that is attempting to prove a negative, and will never fly in a scientific environment. Instead, you must prove that explosives were possible to have been in the tower and set off leaving no evidence that they were ever there.


First of all I NEVER talk about explosive. I don't know what destroyed that supports and don't care. I am merely pointing out that the structure could not possibly have been crushed down from the top.


According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the tallest building demolished by explosives was the former J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Mich. It stood at 439 feet when it was imploded on Oct. 24, 1998. The 25-story department store was the tallest in America, and it was the second largest in square footage (only Macy's anchor store in New York is bigger)

Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...

The WTC was triple the height of that structure. But it had to support its own weight. So it had to get much stronger toward the bottom. That greater strength means more steel which means more weight. Being completely crushed down from the top would be IMPOSSIBLE. So why doesn't everybody want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete?

Why can't you build a model that can crush itself?

psik



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't you build a model that can crush itself?


Honestly, it's not a question of can't, but a question of logistics. I live at a university and money is scarce. First, I would have to take time out of my day and dedicate it into developing a design for a model. Then, I would have to buy materials and spend even more time putting the thing together and setting up a repeatable test which would determine collapse dynamics.

You are saying that the lower had to support the upper. This is true, specifically for the upper points of the columns. When the planes impacted, many of these columns were severed, and many of the floor trusses were removed. This causes dynamic loading on the remaining columns. Now, when the fire starts to get pretty darn hot after a while, some of the columns begin to weaken a little bit. This changes load-bearing again, and eventually the collapse begins as columns fail (bend, break at connections, etc.)

So, you now have a falling mass. This impacts the floors below, starting at the first floor. The weight impacts and because horizontal trusses and such are in no way designed to take this kind of force, their connections break, their weight is added to the falling mass, and this continues to the next floor, and the next, and the next. You get my point.

While it is supposed to hold itself up, and did a damn good job for an hour/hour-and-a-half, once the collapse began, nothing could feasibly stop it.

Preliminary ideas for how a model might work to explain this is if you took popsicle sticks and built a tower exterior, and then drilled small holes in them for toothpicks. Place low-weight flat weights on each level, supported by the toothpicks, and then drop the upper portion. The weight of the top would break the toothpick connections, even though they had held up before the drop, and then the added weight of that floor plus the above would fall on the floor below and so on...

Honestly, that seems pretty good, and it's getting late, so I'll catch some sleep now.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't you build a model that can crush itself?
psik


I'll repeat my question to you, Psykeyhackr:

if one of us builds a model of the twin towers that can indeed 'crush itself' will you then be forced to admit that it is possible that the twin towers could have fallen without the aid of explosives?

I think that truthers are the only ones who have the idea that physical models offer any decisive evidence of the possiblity or impossibility of such an event, and on this board you are their only vocal representative. Not only that, but your own model consisting of washers, paper and a dowel has precious little to do with the collapse dynamics offered by the NIST report or university researchers, and thus has little bearing either way. Personally, I think it wouldn't matter either way if I saw a small model collapse, so I don't know why anyone would care if I built one that would collapse.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why can't you build a model that can crush itself?
psik


I'll repeat my question to you, Psykeyhackr:

if one of us builds a model of the twin towers that can indeed 'crush itself' will you then be forced to admit that it is possible that the twin towers could have fallen without the aid of explosives?


My model is not a model of the twin towers it is just a self supporting structure. Therefore every level must be strong enough to support all levels above. Therefore a top down collapse must accelerate the mass below and destroy the supports holding that mass.

Your IF is nothing but an idea in your head.

DO IT! If it can't be done then talking about IF is nonsense.

Where has any engineering school said they would even try in the last TEN YEARS?

That IF is just rhetorical debating bullsh#. Physics does not give a damn about IF. If you think debating about IFs is Intelligent that is your problem. DO IT!




psik



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Have you not realized that your structure acts as an accordion, getting more compressed (and therefor stronger) as it crushes down? It is many, many times stronger than the tower constructions could have ever been.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So that's the second time in this thread you don't answer my question. I'll take that as a no.

I'm surprised that you're so candid about the fact that your model does not represent the twin towers. If such is the case, why should anyone care? It tells us nothing at all, but you continue posting that video as if it is some kind of proof.

The world's engineering schools have not been in a race to construct tiny scale models of the towers because this would prove nothing to anybody.

By ignoring my question, you imply that you don't even care yourself whether a collapsible model can be constructed. You'll just carry on posting your dowel and washers til the end of time.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikey,

I do appreciate your attempt to demonstrate the physics with your model, I really do. However, as it has been pointed out to you before that it has a serious flaw that does not make it comparable to the WTC.

If you had the washers inside a tube, and each washer was held up on four side with small cardboard tabs or toothpicks, and then dropped a stack of washer onto it, then it would be a little more comparable to the way the floors were designed in the WTC.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Considering the remains of the core after the collapse, that may speak volumes about where the concentration of energy was (the parts which got destroyed completely).

That's the best idea I have, since I'm not really an expert on building collapse dynamics.


But everyone has to be Brainwashed with the word COLLAPSE and then believe it was a collapse that produced those effects. Collapse was IMPOSSIBLE. So physicists are not demanding accurate data on the steel distribution. The energy to do the collapsing would have to be accounted for.

psik


Even in a demolition, a collapse happened. Demolitions USE natural collapse dynamics to direct the debris where they want it to.

So collapse was NOT impossible at all. It HAPPENED, in case you missed it. So, we're deciding specifically HOW.

You claim that without explosives that it is impossible, but that is attempting to prove a negative, and will never fly in a scientific environment. Instead, you must prove that explosives were possible to have been in the tower and set off leaving no evidence that they were ever there.

Mainly, you and the other demo-believers must come up with the proof that the bombs were present. Obviously, witnesses hearing explosions is not good enough, since there were enough different types of cameras there, that it should have been caught on them (as evidenced by the cameras which were able to record the explosions from demolitions in the past), and there are a lot of things which "explode" in fires. To a civilian, it would just be explosion. Everything that makes a loud noise and is no longer in one piece counts as an explosion to most people.

Evidence that would support explosives:
*Recovered demolition charge fragments, wiring, small molten pools of cutter charge material.
*Proof of demolition team rigging the building at any point in time. This would include the when and how. How is the most difficult, because with thousands of people going through those towers (including bomb-sniffing dogs), it would be very hard to conceal explosives.
*Video of the explosives going off.

Honestly, if you don't have any of this, then you are riding purely on a horse called speculation.


specifically, there has been independent proof of thermite found in the rubble...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg
specifically, there has been independent proof of thermite found in the rubble...


This would be news to me. If you could cite a source, I would be very grateful.

To my knowledge, Jones is the only person to have discovered thermite, and that other labs actually found the supposed thermite to be paint chips, or have not been allowed to study the dust samples used by Jones at all.

The only paper I've seen that is close to your claim is that someone verified that Jones did his math correctly. His analysis of the dust samples has not been independently proven to my knowledge.

So, again, offer your source and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, welcome to ATS. We believe in facts, not baseless claims.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


psikey,

I do appreciate your attempt to demonstrate the physics with your model, I really do. However, as it has been pointed out to you before that it has a serious flaw that does not make it comparable to the WTC.

If you had the washers inside a tube, and each washer was held up on four side with small cardboard tabs or toothpicks, and then dropped a stack of washer onto it, then it would be a little more comparable to the way the floors were designed in the WTC.


You are trying to compare my washers to floors in the WTC. I am making no such comparison. The washers are MASS that must be supported. The floors were not the only MASS in the WTC. You pancake people pretend the core wasn't there and don't explain how it got collapsed.

psik



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Drezden
 


there's an awful lot wrong with your understanding of what happened.

the weight above didn't have to crush an entire building, all it needed was enough mass and momentum to crush a single floor, repeatedly.

this little mistake is soooooooo common, and often from people who claim to know a lot about physics or structural engineering, etc.



So, what you end up having is a bunch of CRUSHED (actually pulverized) debris (actually dust) from one floor falling on the floor below it, right? I live in a wooden framed home...If you dropped a bunch of pulverized debris on my roof, it would scatter...not crush...my home...unless of course the supporting structural framing of my home was damaged or in disrepair...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jeichelberg
specifically, there has been independent proof of thermite found in the rubble...


This would be news to me. If you could cite a source, I would be very grateful.

To my knowledge, Jones is the only person to have discovered thermite, and that other labs actually found the supposed thermite to be paint chips, or have not been allowed to study the dust samples used by Jones at all.

The only paper I've seen that is close to your claim is that someone verified that Jones did his math correctly. His analysis of the dust samples has not been independently proven to my knowledge.

So, again, offer your source and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, welcome to ATS. We believe in facts, not baseless claims.


www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


that's a common misconception. given enough debris being dropped on your house in a short enough time span, it WILL collapse.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


I'm afraid, if you follow that "globalresearch" link, then follow the link from there that the article is based upon, you will see that it takes you to the Steven Jones' paper.

Self-published through the Bentham site:

www.benthamscience.com...

Not really "peer reviewed". Even though that is what they (Bentham) say on their home page. You see, Jones could not find any reputable scientist to agree with him, for an actual peer review. The half-dozen other names listed could be looked up, but they are co-authors and not suitable to "review" their own work.


edit on Sun 16 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jeichelberg
specifically, there has been independent proof of thermite found in the rubble...


This would be news to me. If you could cite a source, I would be very grateful.

To my knowledge, Jones is the only person to have discovered thermite, and that other labs actually found the supposed thermite to be paint chips, or have not been allowed to study the dust samples used by Jones at all.

The only paper I've seen that is close to your claim is that someone verified that Jones did his math correctly. His analysis of the dust samples has not been independently proven to my knowledge.

So, again, offer your source and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, welcome to ATS. We believe in facts, not baseless claims.


www.globalresearch.ca...

That's the Harrit/Jones et. al. pamphlet which started it all, hardly an independent paper...

But here's a rough independent analysis, by a French truther who somehow managed to obtain a sample: www.darksideofgravity.com...



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join