It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 13
4
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I am not going to provide a background to explain grade school physics.

If you have zero practical training in physics then how do we know this "grade school physics" is real world physics and not cartoon physics? In real world physics, objects dropped at the same time fall at the same rate regardless of size. In cartoon physics, Wile E. Coyote always falls faster than an anvil.

What is stopping you from explaining anything wrong with my Python program using the Conservation of Momentum? I would be happy to see a PhD physicist try to explain something wrong with it that might cause as much as a 5% error.

What's stopping me? It's very simple. Calculating out how the conservation of momentum played out during the collapse of the building is akin to demandiing to know the precise number of vending machines were in the towers- it's an irrelevent detail and does nothing to document any of the critical events of 9/11.

It's an unquestionable fact that planes did hit the towers, it's an unquestionable fact that *something* happened, and it's an unquestionable fact that the towers collapsed shortly afterwards. The sixty four thousand dollar question is what that "something" actually was, so unless you have an actual point you're getting at, you shouldn't be surprised that you have no audience here.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by samkent
Since you admit to not having all the construction data how could your Python program be anything but speculation?

No certifications + missing data + incorrect model = wrong conclusion

Imagine you being on trial and the prosecutor presents missing data and incorrect model and no certifications against you. What would you want the jury to do??

Since the Python program makes it possible for the user to change the distribution of mass this demonstrates that mass alone affects the collapse time. But constant mass still takes 12 seconds and Dr. Sunder of the NIST says the north tower came down in 11 seconds. Therefore it is ridiculous for EXPERTS to not have demanded that information on the buildings to supposedly analyse this problem long ago.

9/11 is a scientific joke.

psik

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM

But constant mass still takes 12 seconds and Dr. Sunder of the NIST says the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

Can you show me where in the official record the exact collapse time is recorded? You can't because no one knows exactly. The collapse was obscured by an enormous dust cloud. Collapse times were infered from, among other things, seismic records. Too bad for you. Your python is a waste of time.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I am not going to provide a background to explain grade school physics.

If you have zero practical training in physics then how do we know this "grade school physics" is real world physics and not cartoon physics? In real world physics, objects dropped at the same time fall at the same rate regardless of size. In cartoon physics, Wile E. Coyote always falls faster than an anvil.

It is not my fault if you can't look up the conservation of momentum and comprehend the equation. I have no way of knowing if you knew about the conservation of momentum before I mentioned it or not.

I am only interested in trying to explain things to people with some degree of brains. If some people consider themselves to be stupid that is not my responsibility. It is not my fault if some people are diverted by your misdirection tactics either.

psik

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:03 PM

Originally posted by hooper

But constant mass still takes 12 seconds and Dr. Sunder of the NIST says the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

Can you show me where in the official record the exact collapse time is recorded? You can't because no one knows exactly. The collapse was obscured by an enormous dust cloud. Collapse times were infered from, among other things, seismic records. Too bad for you. Your python is a waste of time.

The spire was visible after the dust cloud was gone. The longest collapse time is 25 seconds.

My Python program only uses the conservation of momentum to slow things down and the time does change with the distribution of mass so the program demonstrates that WE NEED TO KNOW THE DISTRIBUTION OF MASS OF THE TOWERS. So how is it that without supports to be destroyed, which cannot happen in reality, that the real collapse was only double the minimum of my program?

It takes real genius to figure out that is peculiar.

psik

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:26 PM

Honestly mate, dont continue this chat because he will just go around in circles and say the same thing. I have even asked him on this thread that if he has proof then why doesnt he go to the press, i've even offered to have engineers look at his work. You have to admire the way he sticks to his guns, but if challenged he will not give you a direct answer.

Go on, I dare you to ask him why he hasnt took this to the press or had his formula published in a physics journal.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:41 PM

'Maybe something like that did happen. Remember WTC 7 did fall without being impacted by a plane. Could be that maybe a plane was suppose to hit WTC 7 but flight 93 was grounded in Pennsylvania and the FAA grounded the rest of 'em around 10:00am that morning.

But thanks to 9/11 we now know that if a skyscraper is damaged and then catches fire, it will collapse. On the other hand if a skyscraper catches fire, which causes damage, the building will stay standing. FYI'

But theres the flaw, if the plan needed a plane to hit WTC 7 and it didnt take off, there back up plan was to just set the bombs off and hope no one would notice that it just fell down?

If it was a plan wouldnt it better to have carried it out at night? no witnesses, no videos, you could have launched your dummy planes (i'm not saying you belive in that theory) crashed them anywhere in the towers, blew them up and you wouldnt have any one going 'hang on a second,thats not right' when the towers and WTC 7 fell.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by windsorblue

Honestly mate, dont continue this chat because he will just go around in circles and say the same thing. I have even asked him on this thread that if he has proof then why doesnt he go to the press, i've even offered to have engineers look at his work. You have to admire the way he sticks to his guns, but if challenged he will not give you a direct answer.

Go on, I dare you to ask him why he hasnt took this to the press or had his formula published in a physics journal.

The Conservation of Momentum is MY FORMULA?

It isn't my fault that you think there is PROOF. When did I claim to have PROOF?

My collapse model is a demonstration of physical principles. It is not PROOF and I never said it was. But why haven't all of the experts been demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete? The NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Some people can understand what I am saying.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But other people want over simplified answers that they can call proof.

It is not my fault that you BELIEVE that an airliner and fire could destroy a skyscraper 2000+ times its own mass in less than two hours without demanding accurate data on the skyscraper.

Regardless of what or who destroyed the towers why shouldn't everyone expect to be supplied with accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers and the weight of the pans and trusses of the floors, and how strong the connections were relative to the weight of the floor assemblies? So some people can believe absurdities without data.

psik
edit on 16-3-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 09:32 PM

Are you not saying that your python program using the conservation of momentum is proof that something is amiss with the official explanation of what happend that day?

Are you not the one saying that every single person who knows anything about physics is wrong or does not understand what happend with the WTC collapse on that day?

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by windsorblue

'Maybe something like that did happen. Remember WTC 7 did fall without being impacted by a plane. Could be that maybe a plane was suppose to hit WTC 7 but flight 93 was grounded in Pennsylvania and the FAA grounded the rest of 'em around 10:00am that morning.

But thanks to 9/11 we now know that if a skyscraper is damaged and then catches fire, it will collapse. On the other hand if a skyscraper catches fire, which causes damage, the building will stay standing. FYI'

But theres the flaw, if the plan needed a plane to hit WTC 7 and it didnt take off, there back up plan was to just set the bombs off and hope no one would notice that it just fell down?

If it was a plan wouldnt it better to have carried it out at night? no witnesses, no videos, you could have launched your dummy planes (i'm not saying you believe in that theory) crashed them anywhere in the towers, blew them up and you wouldnt have any one going 'hang on a second,thats not right' when the towers and WTC 7 fell.

Thanks for the reply, I was starting to feel ignored.

Yes, I believe building 7 was scheduled to be hit by another jet airliner but for whatever reason that didn't happen. Faced with a building already loaded with explosives and no commercial airliner to give the planners a reason to set off the explosives, they just waited it out and let the building burn for 5 or 6 hours and then pulled it to the ground. That way the public would think it fell because it was on fire.

Seems to have worked.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:51 PM

Originally posted by windsorblue

Are you not saying that your python program using the conservation of momentum is proof that something is amiss with the official explanation of what happend that day?

Are you not the one saying that every single person who knows anything about physics is wrong or does not understand what happend with the WTC collapse on that day?

Neil De Grasse Tyson is an astrophysicist who lived a few blocks from the WTC. He was home that day and took videos. He had to abandon his home because of the dust. He posted an email the next day describing his experiences.

I have seen ABSOLUTELY NOTHING written by him explaining anything about what he thinks destroyed the towers. This idea that everybody who knows physics has agreed on what happened is COMPLETE NONSENSE. I think it is fairly obvious that the majority of people who know physics are saying NOTHING. The whole idea of doing physics without accurate data is what makes the whole thing total nonsense. I asked Richard Gage to his face about the distributions of steel and concrete. He looked at me like I had grown a second head. And then he gave me the lame excuse of the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. The Empire State Building is 80 years old. But I can't find distribution of steel and concrete data on any skyscrapers. I don't see much discussion of the phenomenon in skyscrapers much less details.

That graph I linked to showed how mass distribution affected collapse time without brining up the factor of the strength of material needed to support that mass. Skyscrapers don't just get heavier toward the bottom they get stronger because it is the increase in steel to get that strength that increases the weight.

So if the Conservation of Momentum alone would increase the collapse time then the destruction of that strength would have to have an even greater effect. That is what my physical model is about.

My model did not collapse at all.

So if people who know so much about physics think the buildings could completely collapse then why can't they simply build a model that can demonstrate that behavior? They have had TEN YEARS. I have even provided a design. I have never claimed my model is a proof because the paper loops are still too strong relative to the weight of the washers. Our engineering schools should have the resources to build a taller heavier version of my design with more levels individually made as weak as possible to see if they can produce the collapse.

Of course if I am correct then if they build a model then they will fail and make themselves look stupid.

But that is the problem they have created for themselves after TEN YEARS. How can they admit that airliners could not do it? If that is the case they should have explained it in 2002. So they can't explain it and they can't admit that it is impossible.

So lots of physicists are saying nothing. Tyson has a prominent job and a family. If airliners could not destroy those buildings then somebody does not care how many people they kill. I wonder if he regrets sending that email.

But 9/11 is now a global education or brainwashing problem depending on how you look at it. Grade school kids should understand the basic ideas of what it takes for skyscrapers to hold themselves up.

Of course after TEN YEARS if this is a simple problem then a lot of people would have to admit that they have been stupid. I have a program and a couple of models. What have you got? Belief in the word of people you regard as experts when you don't even understand what they are saying when in fact the majority of them are not even talking?

psik

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:06 PM

Didnt mean to be ignorant,
but it doesnt make sense that if they had a plane all ready to go what happend to it? what happend to the hi-jackers? are they still running around the U.S.A? how did they know that the fire in WTC 7 would not have disrupted the bombs in any way, e.g. burned them off the supports and stop the detonation? what would they have done if one of the planes aimed at either the North or South tower was still on the ground? just dropped those also?

There is to many questions, and to be honest, not enough answers ( and i'm not talking physics). I belive that the attacks happend as we saw them, they were what they were, and the U.S. goverment were probably aware of the plot but just belivied that it was to far fetched and did nothing about it.

Happy St. Patricks by the way.........I'm hammered.
edit on 16-3-2012 by windsorblue because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:16 PM

We have been around the block with this subject on this thread, you have said you're piece, I have said mine. I wish you good luck on your travels and I hope you have great chats on this matter with other members. so live long and prosper...happy St. Patricks.....and may the force be with you.

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by windsorblue

We have been around the block with this subject on this thread, you have said you're piece, I have said mine. I wish you good luck on your travels and I hope you have great chats on this matter with other members. so live long and prosper...happy St. Patricks.....and may the force be with you.

Looks like a NULL response to me.

psik

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by samkent

And if the beam existed in 2001 Why didn't they use it to pulverize BinLadens compound last year?
No secret chopper to loose.
No risk of loosing any Delta troops.
No pissed off Paki's because we invaded.

Who is "they"? You seem to have reached the forgone conclusion that if the official story is wrong, that the only alternative is that the united states government was involved.

What if some other country with enormous resources and capabilities did it, and the united states was left with no option but to implicate a smaller, enemy (terrorists), to deflect attention from the true offenders, and avert an all out war with a country that had just demonstrated military superiority?

Why would that third party like china want to get involved helping thier enemy in a fight that was stated as a smokescreen in the wake of a financial solution that was constructed to apease the attackers? Ie they got what they wanted (trade) and a weakened US economy.

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:59 PM

To give scaled down analogy:

Lets assume 2 countries with similar sized armies have reached the technological development that the pistol and revolver is the pinnacle of their weaponry technology. A few other smaller nations with less advanced weapons have some resentment towards one of those nations, but is wise enough not to pick a fight they can not win.

Let's assume the Gatling gun was never invented, and nobody investigated making hand grenades or other large scale explosives.

If suddenly a platoon of men is decimated by a small unit of men carrying the equivalent of m16 assault rifles and ak47s, and one or 2 grenades, along with a clear list of demands, indicating a full scale assault in the event of non compliance, what is the most likely outcome? The attacked country is left with no choice but to meet those demands and attack an innocent third country, claiming it was them who made the attack, using conventional weapons, and simultaneously attempt to catch up on the new technology they have just seen first hand. They could not go to war as defeat would be inevitable, and they could not be seen to be surrendering to the attackers by openly responding to publicly stated demands. So they find a patsy, and retaliate. To divert attention from the real attackers, a few rumors are started that the attack was a false flag. This is preferable to appearing weak - an evil tough guy that beats his family members to blame his neighbors is still a tough guy. A wimpy geek that pays protection money to gangsters is seen as a pushover, whatever way you play it.

It is my belief that is what happened in 2001 on a larger scale.
The entire 911 debate was intentionally crafted through a number of agent provocateurs playing both sides of the game. Yes high tech was involved. Yes there was a coverup . But there is more than one reason to cover something up, besides the assumptions made by most people who deny the official story

edit on 17-3-2012 by FlutterByte because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:12 PM

You have to be a Republican or a Democrat to get elected. I agree that something outside of the OS or Bush-did-it is easy to hide. Too much background is required to see any other option.

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 07:42 AM

Originally posted by windsorblue

If it was a plan wouldnt it better to have carried it out at night? no witnesses, no videos, you could have launched your dummy planes (i'm not saying you belive in that theory) crashed them anywhere in the towers, blew them up and you wouldnt have any one going 'hang on a second,thats not right' when the towers and WTC 7 fell.

I'm mean, obviously not if you believe that it collapsed lol You have 1000's of experts pointing out it was a controlled demolition but the majority still believed it collapsed. The whole event was so tragic that some people feel questioning it is wrong and disgraceful to those who perished that day, which I completely understand.
edit on 2-4-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Canned2na
I think I'm a lot like yourself. I was nine when the attacks occured, very shortly after my birthday. I remember being in school and all the teachers were freaking out. Next thing I remember was that idiot Bush getting on declaring war on terrorism and whatnot.

At the time I didn't think much of it, until I was about 14 or so. That's when I first started hearing about that Loose Change doco. I never took a side, because of that heated debate between the Loose Change folks, the MSM and those Popular Mechanics "experts". Hell I never really cared about the world as a whole until I was 16, then politics early last year.

Now, my position on this is:

The towers were hit by planes, remotely controlled of course, as well as being rigged with thermite. WTC 7 was a total controlled demo. The Pentagon was either hit by a missile or drone, but I'm really on the fence about it until they release the footage that is being withheld. As for the "plane" in Pennsylvania, it probably didn't even exist, and the "crater" was probably dug up or blasted to make it look like so.

Hi can,
I would have to say "On a clear day one can see clearly from coast to coast"
I have been telling the OS army here on ATs that the young rule and will determine the future of America. I had all ready returned from a war 33 years prior to 911.
God bless you son
ljb

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:15 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Governments can't keep secrets?
Look up The Manhattan Project.
Regarding 9/11 -
Don't worry about finding the truth or discovering all the "facts", it won't happen.
We'll likely never know them due to the amount of destruction of evidence.
That should tell you something important.

That's rather an unrealistic attitude. By Richard Gage's own admission, he has the formula of the explosives that were supposed to have been used, he has the blueprints of the towers, he has miles of video footage of the collapse taken from every conceivable angle, he has 1,500 supposed experts in the fields of physics, demilitions, engineering, and others, AND he has enough disposable cash to be making movie after movie that pushes his controlled demolitions claims. It would take him and his bunch about a month to hold his OWN investigation and reverse engineer exactly how controlled demeolitions were used to bring down the towers in the way we all saw- their exact placement, the area in the buildings that needed to be compromised, how much explosives were needed, how their detonations were coordinated with each other, all of that. He wouldn't even need to explain how the demolitions got into the building. Once he mapped out where the demolitions were placed in the building he would irrefutably prove conspiracy...BUT, he isn't doing this. How do you explain this?

The explanation *I* see is that Gage knows what he's peddling is just conspiracy snake oil and trying to calculate out how controlled demolitions brought down the towers is akin to trying to prove two plus two equals five, so he simply spins his "witnesses heard explosions" innuendo while collecting his speaking fees. You're right when you say we won't see any new information. It isn't in the best interest of the truthers.

Truther or not ... If someone could lead me to an active conversation (I tried to look) about the BBC's knowledge of the WTC 7 collapse. According to the news footage I have seen they knew at least 10 minutes before that the building was going to fall. They even talked about it in their interview and WTC 7 was still standing behind the reporter. How did they know? Any explination? Bad timing? The clocks were wrong? That was not WTC 7 behind the reporter? Has anyone ever debunked this?

WTC 7 and the BBC

Was Giuliani mistaken when he said that he was told that the WTC was going to collapse so he could escape? What that an editing glitch? Did he just say something he was not suppose too or was it just the excitement of the day? Who told him to evacuate if it was true? Is this interview real or a truther fabrication? Has anyone ever debunked this?

Giuliani tongue

top topics

4