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.

 

Your 9/11 truth?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GGEden
 


Wasn't it mostly paper and light materials carried by wind that was scattered in the wide radius? As for the cartoony cutout, I always assumed that a plane going very fast nearly straight down will not leave a lot of large pieces. First it impacted, which would break most of the plane apart, and then it exploded, which would blow it apart.

Just my two cents.




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

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.


Build a house of cards and knock it down. Then check to see if the cards were damaged by the fall and if you could rebuild the house with the same cards.

I could not rebuild my structure after the collapse because the paper loops are DAMAGED. That damage requires ENERGY. That is what slows the fall down and causes it to arrest. You are talking about pancaking but even pancaking would require energy to break the connections and that pancaking does not explain the destruction of the core.

Obviously my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. I have admitted this many times. I have also NEVER claimed that my model is PROOF. It is only a demonstration of physical principals. You can talk about the floor outside the core all you want but when does anyone ever specify the weight of that entire floor assembly. The concrete should be 600 tons but I have never seen the weight of the floor pans and all of the trusses specified. So how strong were all of the connections relative to that weight.

How can a model be built and tested without that information?

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.

So you pancake theory means the core should have remained standing. But because the antenna of the north tower began falling first that would mean the core was going down first. So how did the core collapse on itself?

psik



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by GGEden
 



I posted this on another site, wanted to share here....

Why?

Regarding Shanksville....

Regards back!

A plane that crashes into the ground does not scatter 2.5 miles let alone 6-8 miles.

Does not scatter what? And says who? Where is this rule written and proven?

A plane shot out of the sky, does.

Really? Says who? Shot out of the sky with what? At what altitude? At what speed? What kind of plane? Again, where are these "rules" coming from?

Example, where was the debris of WTC planes scattered 2.5 miles? Where was the Pentagon plane debris scattered 2.5 miles? Exactly

Exactly. Read the line above where you mentioned the ground. None of those planes hit the ground. And there was plane debris scattered in all three instances.

Remember, supposedly the shanksville plane submerged whole into the ground leaving a cartoon-cutout image in the earth lol.

Remember - that is something only you think. A figment of your own imagination.

If you want proof of an inside-job, there's irrefutable evidence right there on several counts...

OK.

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.

Or the wind. Most people are familiar with the wind and its scattering capabilities. Maybe if you got out of your mom's basement then you'd be a little more familiar with the wind.

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!"

Except the "OS" doesn't say that - only you say that - which proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt that - you're an inside job.

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.

What an imagination! Yeah, I remember reading in the official report about how flight 93 embedded itself whole into the ground. No, wait - no I don't! Can you show me where that's written in the OS?

All eyewitnesses, TV crews at the scene of Shanksville soon after impact, said there were no traces of a plane anywhere.

No they didn't.

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.

No, the OS isn't saying that - only you.

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!

Wow! Can you prove that everything bounced and traveled 2.5 miles? I've never heard that before!

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.

Never heard that before - that wouldn't, per chance, be your opinion about something you made up, would it?

Shanksville is the most stupid aspect of the O/S, it is genuinely moronic to gobble it up.

Yes, it would be pretty moronic for anyone to "gobble up" the moronic drivel you posted.

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'

Well, actually, no one believe anything you just posted and no one thinks what you describe is the "official story".



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





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?

You answered your own question. It's expensive and difficult. Plus there is no point given the design plans.




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.

You also answered your own point earlier.
Your model doesn't represent the design of the towers.
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.

Plus your paper loops did not come apart like steel and concrete. wad a sheet of paper into a ball. Then crush the ball between your two hands. At some point you cannot flatten the ball any farther. Concrete shatters into dust and some blows out through the openings. Your paper loops are a bad analogy to steel and concrete.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



It is a demonstration of PHYSICS.

No, its a demonstration of the strength of copier paper.

The WTC towers could not defy physics.

No, they couldn't, ergo they didn't. Therefore what we witnessed on 9/11/2001 was in keeping with the laws of physics. And since the only two phenomenon that were witnessed were the impact of the plane and the collapse of the towers and since you cannot present any direct evidence of any other phenomenon that day then it goes that the collapse was a result of the plane impact.

By the way, your interpretation of the laws of physics, your disdain for the "physics profession" and your open disgust with engineering schools for failing to build the models that you want to see does NOT qualify as direct evidence.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

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


It's a demonstration of the physics of the towers if and only if the metal columns were pushing straight down on the columns below with no lateral movement. You're an idiot if you think it reflects any kind of similarity to the collapse physics.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

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.

There, that should clear things up.
edit on 8-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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.


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?

My masses have to be supported against gravity by something.

You are just trying to imply the model is saying more than it does. The WTC was built of tens of thousands of components. My gravitational collapse DEMONSTRATION model has fewer than 200 and that includes the celophane tape holding the paper loops closed. A model with that few components has to be simplified.

But I notice that none of you have built a model that does anything. All you can do is blather.

psik



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





But I notice that none of you have built a model that does anything. All you can do is blather.

We don't need one to understand what happened that day.
Blather? Is that some sort of measurement of postings?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

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?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

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?


You can call it running away all you want. Why are qualifications required for grade school physics? Or is that just because it is beyond your understanding?

And this is the Internet. Anybody can CLAIM anything so asking makes no sense. You can build the models and test the physics for yourself.

I used paper rings as "weak as possible" supports for the mass I was dealing with. I am not responsible for your idiotic exaggerations of the importance of the shape. The supports must handle the static load but if multiple stages of the weakest possible support still slow and stop the dynamic load then the supposed collapse of the north tower is nonsense.

I see no one has responded to my quote from the NIST report on the weight and its distribution in the towers. All you can do is try to come up with idiotic arguments to refute my models. Real physical model still have to conform to physics. Not like computer simulations where the core columns don't deflect due to the impact.

psik



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I used paper rings as "weak as possible" supports for the mass I was dealing with.

Prove they were as weak as possible. C'mon, this is kindergarten logic. If you say they are as weak as possible you must have organized some reproducible test to prove it. Please show us the test. Otherwise, the "model" is exactly as I have been saying - it demonstrates only what happens when you drop washers on random paper loops impaled on a broom handle.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by GGEden
 


So its 2.5 miles , not its 6, wait the debris was 8 miles away...

Actually the debris was found in nearby lake about 1,5- 2 miles away - it was mostly scraps of paper and
metallic foil insulation

The 6-8 miles comes from idiots who entered the distance into a mapping program and GOT THE DRIVING
DIRECTIONS from the crash site

Now tell me when wind blown debris follows the roads to get from point A to B

As for lack of debris

Fuselage sections





Aircraft tire



Seat Belt



Honeycomb





Forward 1/3 section of Flight 93 broke off on impact and was found in woods beyond impact crater



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
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
Hence,
v = u [N/(1 + N)]
The initial kinetic energy, Ti, of the falling block of N floors is given by:
Ti = ½ Nmf u2
The kinetic energy after the first collision, Ta, is given by:
Ta = ½ (mf + Nmf) v2
Hence,
Ta = ½ mf (1 + N)  [u2 N2/(1 + N)2]
or,
Ta = ½ mf u2 N2/(1 + N)
Let the kinetic energy that is “lost” in the inelastic collision be represented by Q;
this energy is ultimately dissipated as heat.
Q = Ti  Ta
Substituting for Ti and Ta we find,
Q = ½ Nmf u2 ½ mf u2 N2/(1 + N)
or,
Q = ½ mf u2 [N/(1 + N)]
But the initial kinetic energy Ti is equal to ½ Nmf u2 so the fractional conversion, fc, of
kinetic energy to heat is simply,
fc = Q/Ti = 1/(1 + N)
This is an important result because it shows that for a series of inelastic collisions,
which we believe is a good first approximation to the collapse of the WTC towers, a
significant fraction of the kinetic energy generated during the collapse is lost as heat. To
fully illustrate this point consider the following example:
For one WTC floor collapsing onto a floor below, the kinetic energy immediately
before impact is
Ti = ½[510,000,000/110]  (8.5)2 Joules
Ti = 1.67  108 J
The kinetic energy of the combined floors immediately after impact is
Ta = ½[2  510,000,000/110]  (8.5/2)2 Joules
or,
Ta = ½ Ti = Q
Thus, in the case of one floor collapsing onto the floor below, 50 % of the kinetic energy
is dissipated as heat! However, we have shown that as we increase the number of
collapsing floors, the fractional loss of kinetic energy, fc, decreases as 1/(1 + N), where N
is the number of falling floors. Since the WTC 1 collapse consisted of 14 floors
impacting the floor below, and the WTC 2 collapse involved 29 floors impacting the
floor below, we have the kinetic energy before impact,
Ti (WTC 1) = 14  1.67  108 J = 23.4  108 J
Ti (WTC 2) = 29  1.67  108 J = 48.4  108 J
The kinetic energy lost as heat, which we shall call Q (WTC 1) or Q (WTC 2), is
fc  Ti where fc = 1/(1 + N). Hence,
Q (WTC 1) = 1/(1 + N)  Ti (WTC 1) = 14/15  1.67  108 J = 1.56  108 J
Q (WTC 2) = 1/(1 + N)  Ti (WTC 2) = 29/30  1.67  108 J = 1.61  108 J
A comparison of these Q values with the initial kinetic energies, Ti (WTC 1) and
Ti (WTC 2), shows that a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for
WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper
blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for
subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor
impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an
inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

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


Why are some floor supposed to act as a block and other floors are not supposed to act as a block?

That is the thing about my Python program. I have 14 falling masses at the start but each one acts independently. So when #14 hits #15 then the velocity is cut in half and the mass doubles. But masses #1 to #13 continue accelerating. Eventually they catch up and hit the lower ones that were slowed down. The total collapse is a minimum of 12 seconds.

You explain why the block falling from above is supposed to be treated differently from all of the levels below. You are being inconsistent with your physics. And then you want to throw a lot of math around as though that is intelligent.

Math does not apply itself. People can apply it stupidly.

psik



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

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.


Don't tell me. Tell winsorblue. He came up with those equations.


psik



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I didnt come up with the equations and i'm not going to try and take credit for some ones work, a man called Dr. Frank Greening wrote this. And i'm not trying to have a pop at you here, I am putting this information out because you said the the collapse defied physics and this is a reply to that statement and I just would like your honest feedback on this, If it is wrong (or has been disproved before on this site, I did a search but not find anything to match) I will put my hands up and apologise for wasting everyones time. I have also attached a little bio of Dr Greening below, he has done a lot of equations for what happend to the WTC on that awful day, you should have a look at his work.

He has a Ph. D. in chemistry , his official title for over 20 years was Senior Research Scientist at what used to be called Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. He was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors. He has published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. and even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join