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.
Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Watching your experiment I noticed the metal loops were supported from underneath, by paper I think, which would contributed to overall support of the column, the floors in the WTC, as I have mentioned before:
‘Consisted of 4-inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck with shear connections for composite action.] A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short span area. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were on 6-foot-8-inch (2.03 m) centres’. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side.’
If the trusses and spandrels were damaged and weakened to the point they broke then the floors would now no longer be supported, and they were not supported by the floor underneath, then with the application of physics, F=MA (The gravitational force = mass x acceleration of the mass due to gravity) the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards.
I posted this on another site, wanted to share here....
Regarding Shanksville....
A plane that crashes into the ground does not scatter 2.5 miles let alone 6-8 miles.
A plane shot out of the sky, does.
Example, where was the debris of WTC planes scattered 2.5 miles? Where was the Pentagon plane debris scattered 2.5 miles? Exactly
Remember, supposedly the shanksville plane submerged whole into the ground leaving a cartoon-cutout image in the earth lol.
If you want proof of an inside-job, there's irrefutable evidence right there on several counts...
Debris found scattered 2.5, or 6-8 miles, either way is impossible from a crashed plane. Do people even realize how far a 2.5 mile radius is? It is seriously stupidity to believe this. The only thing that can scatter debris so far is after a destruction of a plane thousands of feet in the air.
That picture posted above is the O/S saying: "the plane hit the ground as one piece and entered the earth as one piece, sunk into the earth at least the entire length of a Boeing, and then 99% of the plane in debris bounced off the earth and traveled over 2.5 miles!"
Apparently missing homes, trees, buildings, etc, as it zipped thru the air like Superman traveling 2.5 miles. Bits of aluminum, baggage, clothes, etc, all bounced off the earth after making a clear indentation in the ground (sinking at least the entire length of a Boeing from tip to tail, which is impossible) before bouncing off the earth.
All eyewitnesses, TV crews at the scene of Shanksville soon after impact, said there were no traces of a plane anywhere.
So the O/S is further saying that about 99% of the plane after sinking into the earth the entire length of a Boeing, all bounced and traveled 2.5 miles, but only 1% of the plane in debris remained in the site: namely the passport, and again some small bits of plane that was planted just like small bits were planted at the Pentagon, and other passports planted at the Pentagon and WTC.
So, everything bounced and traveled 2.5 miles, but thankfully the passport of the pilot hijacker was found right there on the surface of the crater of the crash site! And in readable condition!
And as has been posted before -- the picture of the guy in the passport is not even the same person's picture named as the terrorist.
Shanksville is the most stupid aspect of the O/S, it is genuinely moronic to gobble it up.
People forced to think they don't have any of their own common sense, logic and understanding of things, so they 'have to' accept the most insane and stupid story/lie ever told simply because they want to side with the 'status quo'
But such a model would be very expensive and extremely difficult to build even with that information. But why haven't any of our engineering schools done it?
But regardless of that the building must support more and more floors the farther down you go therefore the core and the perimeter had to get stronger and stronger thereby increasing the weight. My washers are in sorted order so the heavier ones are toward the bottom. I had to make the paper loops stronger toward the bottom so I have single, double and triple loops. The whole point is that I made them as weak as possible relative to the weight they had to support.
Originally posted by samkent
You used washers as floors. Your washers were heavier (ones) at the bottom. Where as the tower floors were all of the same construction and strength from the top to the bottom.
It is a demonstration of PHYSICS.
The WTC towers could not defy physics.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by samkent
You used washers as floors. Your washers were heavier (ones) at the bottom. Where as the tower floors were all of the same construction and strength from the top to the bottom.
I did not use washers as floors.
I used washers as MASS which had to be supported and which would have to be accelerated in a top down collapse.
It is a demonstration of PHYSICS. The WTC towers could not defy physics.
psik
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by samkent
And you forgot the big broomhandle in the middle which kind of inhibits any collapse, which is what the towers actually did.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by samkent
And you forgot the big broomhandle in the middle which kind of inhibits any collapse, which is what the towers actually did.
To be fair to psikey, his point wasn't that there was a central column that was used as an overall support in his model. He was actually modelling the chain of events of the collapse and the stick was simply used to guide the vertical descent of the model.
What he actually IS doing here, is pretending the core columns were one solid ring rather than some 49 individual hollow columns, as well as pretending the floors supported the central core columns rather than the columns supporting the floors, as well as pretending the interior core columns weren't contiguous throughout the structure, as well as pretending the exterior columns played no part in the support of the floors whatsoever. In short, his point was really to create a phony collapse sequence by using a phony model of the towers, all so that he can complain how phony the actual collapse was. Using that as a basis, he then brow beats everyone on how intellectually substandard they are for being unable to understand how his phony model magically represents what should have happened to the actual WTC.
But I notice that none of you have built a model that does anything. All you can do is blather.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Wow! At first I thought you were actually saying something that made sense and then you turn it into a BIG LIE!
When did I pretend that the columns were a solid ring?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Wow! At first I thought you were actually saying something that made sense and then you turn it into a BIG LIE!
When did I pretend that the columns were a solid ring?
Ummm, when you used a solid ring in your model and then used it as an analogy for the WTC collapse...? You really don't have any inkling at what you're doing, do you?
Just what is your background in physics, anyway? I know you always run away from Windor's first question the same way three card monty players do when the cops show up. How about answering that question, at least?
I used paper rings as "weak as possible" supports for the mass I was dealing with.
Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
[more
Defies physics? I would like to present the following information, I would like to have your feedback on this please.
Consider a totally inelastic collision involving a block of N floors, each floor of
mass mf falling onto a single unattached floor. The velocity before collision, u, is related
to the velocity after collision, v, by the law of conservation of momentum:
Nmf u = (mf + Nmf) v
You explain why the block falling from above is supposed to be treated differently from all of the levels below.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
You explain why the block falling from above is supposed to be treated differently from all of the levels below.
Because it's not a solid falling block.
It's pieces and chunks being pushed by great forces of mass behind them.