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.

# What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 10
14
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:16 AM

Tell us what has the NIST has said about these fractures if they are more than just some jargon you decided to throw into the mix?

Read the report. That's why they published the report.

If you think "fracture critical" is just jargon than you are in way, way, way over your head discussing structural collapse.

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by hooper

Tell us what has the NIST has said about these fractures if they are more than just some jargon you decided to throw into the mix?

Read the report. That's why they published the report.

If you think "fracture critical" is just jargon than you are in way, way, way over your head discussing structural collapse.

I didn't say it was just jargon. I said it was jargon that YOU DECIDED TO THROW INTO THE MIX.

So you tell us what the NIST said about it.

psik

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height. Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE. The tops of the towers did not have empty space beneath them. They had steel strong enough to support their static load.

psik

LOL.....

Ok brah, your claim is that the upper 15 stories had zero PE before collapse initiation.

But you also have stated that the upper 15 stories are the only source of KE available to collapse the tower.

Where did this KE come from?

If there was zero PE, then KE cannot be conjured out of midair.

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But that equation assumes that gravity can cause the mass to accelerate without inhibition through the distance height. Therefore that height has to be EMPTY SPACE. The tops of the towers did not have empty space beneath them. They had steel strong enough to support their static load.

psik

LOL.....

Ok brah, your claim is that the upper 15 stories had zero PE before collapse initiation.

But you also have stated that the upper 15 stories are the only source of KE available to collapse the tower.

Where did this KE come from?

If there was zero PE, then KE cannot be conjured out of midair.

The people talking collapse initiation somehow assume that one level of the building ceased providing support. That would be a 12 foot fall. That would be the distance 'h'. After that the falling portion would be in contact with the stationary portion and would have to bend steel and break concrete which would require energy. So how do 15 stories that had to get lighter and weaker going up destroy 90+ stories that had to get stronger and heavier going down.

But then everyone does not want to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. But a "magical" collapse without supports takes 12 seconds based on equal masses. So how could a real building come down in only 25 seconds?

psik

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:05 PM
Logic, and from every bit of footage that Im allowed to see by the,

GOVERMENT CONTROLLED MEDIA.

Tells me there was no Jet that hit the Pentagon.

The tiny blip followed by a massive explosion is a joke, and reveals nothing. Ofcourse it was TOMAHAWK MISSLE.

Tells me there was no Jet that crashed in Shanksville..

In every single Jet crash , there has always MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBRIS, huge sections of plane, bodys, luggage.

Virtually nonthing was found at Shankswille.

because NO JET CRASHED IT WAS ANOTHER LIE...

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:00 PM

In every single Jet crash , there has always MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBRIS, huge sections of plane, bodys, luggage.

Are you a crash investigator...?

Have you ever been to a crash scene...?

In high speed crash there is not a lot left - everything gets smashed into small fragments with occasional
larger pieces surviving.

No luggage - what does not get fragmented is burned by post crash fire

As for bodies - again not much left. What you find is "human hamburger" , scraps of tissue with little that is
recognizable

By the way been at a crash scene - walked scene and marked body parts for coroner to recover

Like everything else you have posted is simply idiotic opinion fueled by ignorance and paranoia

Run along......

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:11 PM

Have you bothered watching Videos of 1960 crashes of huge jet liners when the FFC was testing how jet Liners crash?

Or how about 2 weeks ago when a huge Jet crashed In Russia -Siberia??

Bottom line in every single filmed ACTUAL VIDEO CRASH FOOTAGE TILL THIS VERY DATE, THERE IS ALWAYS TONS OF DEBRIS, BODYS AND LUGGAGE.

Why are you defending the things you havent done research on or bother to care about???

YOU RUN ALONG!!!!

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:49 AM

Ah yes - Siberian air crash

A passenger plane crashed in Siberia shortly after taking off Monday morning, killing 31 of the 43 people on board, Russian emergency officials said. The 12 survivors were hospitalized in serious condition.

Operative phrase - "shortly after taking off"

Do you understand the difference between a takoff accident where plane is low, slow and hits at low angle
and Shanksville where plane was put into dive and hit at 580 mph nose down?

Apparently not......

Difference in forces is vast

I 've been to a crash scene - largest piece that survived was 2 x 3 ft section of tail fin. Rest was "metallic confetti"

As for bodies - largest piece we could find was half of torso, a hand (sans fingers) and serveral amputated fingers

Watching video at mommy's house does not make you and expert.....

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:35 AM

The tiny blip followed by a massive explosion is a joke, and reveals nothing. Ofcourse it was TOMAHAWK MISSLE.

You have never explained how a tomahawk explodes with an orange fireball.
Show me any video of one with an orange fireball and maybe I'll think it was a missile.

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Total dodge....

psik

How did the upper 15 stories provide (according to you) the only KE available to destroy the lower 95, if (according to you) it had zero PE prior to collapse initiation?

Don't dodge.

Don't deflect with your standard spam.

Be a man and answer, if you can.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Total dodge....

psik

How did the upper 15 stories provide (according to you) the only KE available to destroy the lower 95, if (according to you) it had zero PE prior to collapse initiation?

Don't dodge.

Don't deflect with your standard spam.

Be a man and answer, if you can.

I said the potential energy depends on the amount of EMPTY SPACE under the mass.

The people claiming a gravitation collapse occurred assert that the airliner impact and fire effectively created 12 feet of empty space for the mass to fall through.

We are then supposed to believe that that imparted enough Kinetic Energy to destroy the rest of the building. But then we are not told how much energy was needed to crush each level below. And since the thickness of the columns had to increase down the building progressively more energy would be required. But that increase in steel would also be reflected in the tons of steel on each level, which we are also not told by official sources.

Here is someone doing a calculation for a 12 ft drop.

www.burtonsys.com...

psik

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:32 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I said the potential energy depends on the amount of EMPTY SPACE under the mass.

And you would be wrong.

PE depends on a height above an end point. It's usually considered to be ground level, and in this case would be appropriate since the question at hand is whether or not there was enough PE to cause a collapse all the way to the ground as was observed.

Empty space between the 2 points you're referencing would merely mean that all of the PE could be converted to KE. Nothing more.

The people claiming a gravitation collapse occurred assert that the airliner impact and fire effectively created 12 feet of empty space for the mass to fall through.

Well, I believe Bazant (if that's who you're referring to) effectively neglected buckling resistance, agreed. If you think it's a significant error, please feel free to provide the amount of KE being "used up" by resistance to buckling. But be aware that others have done this and been shown to be abysmally wrong. So proceed at further risk to the last shred of your credibility.

We are then supposed to believe that that imparted enough Kinetic Energy to destroy the rest of the building.

Nope.

Just destroy a single floor.

But then we are not told how much energy was needed to crush each level below.

Crush what, exactly? Columns? Columns would buckle, not crush. Concrete would be crushed, sure. But the amount and to what size would matter by the velocity of the falling impactor.

And since the thickness of the columns had to increase down the building progressively more energy would be required.

Column weren't buckled, except at the initiation zone. There's plenty of visual evidence of straight, but broken at the connections core and ext columns. So it is not rational to even consider this as a KE "sink".

But that increase in steel would also be reflected in the tons of steel on each level, which we are also not told by official sources.

You're spamming again.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Fluffaluffagous because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
But that increase in steel would also be reflected in the tons of steel on each level, which we are also not told by official sources.

You're spamming again.

I notice you made no comment on the link I provided where the man used 12 ft. as the fall distance.

Well, I believe Bazant (if that's who you're referring to) effectively neglected buckling resistance, agreed. If you think it's a significant error, please feel free to provide the amount of KE being "used up" by resistance to buckling. But be aware that others have done this and been shown to be abysmally wrong. So proceed at further risk to the last shred of your credibility.

Well then it should be easy to build a physical model that could collapse completely. Let's see you build or find one. With 47 core columns with varying thicknesses and it is extremely doubtful they would all buckle. Some would be knocked out of alignment and joints with horizontal beams broken. But the bottom of the falling portion would be crushed also so the energy needed for that would also slow the fall. So it is far easier to demonstrate than compute when we don't even have accurate data on the building.

Calling the weight of steel and concrete spam does not change the fact that every skyscraper must hold itself up. Therefore the designers must put in enough steel at every level to hold all of the weight above that level, therefore the weight must be known. So how do people do the physics of skyscrapers without accurate data?

Not solving this in a single year is ridiculous. There is hardly a word to describe not resolving it in ten years. So what is happening with the politics of physicists not asking?

psik

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:48 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I notice you made no comment on the link I provided where the man used 12 ft. as the fall distance.

With 47 core columns with varying thicknesses and it is extremely doubtful they would all buckle.

2 issues with this:

1- at collapse initiation, it is the only way it can happen

2- during collapse progression, there is virtually no buckling seen, so it need not be explained.

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I notice you made no comment on the link I provided where the man used 12 ft. as the fall distance.

That is curious. It still shows up on a Google search and says I accessed i 7 times but now the link is dead from there also.

Here is another talking about a 12 foot drop.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:47 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I notice you made no comment on the link I provided where the man used 12 ft. as the fall distance.

That is curious. It still shows up on a Google search and says I accessed i 7 times but now the link is dead from there also.

Here is another talking about a 12 foot drop.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik

Ok.

So what?

Do you have a point?

I can guarantee you that if you have the intellectual honesty to learn and do some research, that you will find that ANY steel framed building, and most likely any steel re-inforced concrete framed building will experience a cascade failure to the ground after a 12' fall if the building is engineered to within the normal range FoS of 2-3.

I guarantee it.

This is simple high school physics that you can do yourself without having any data from the towers.

Make up your own building... make it as big as you want..... load the structure to industry expectations.....it WILL fail..

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:03 AM
The amount of different videos of the plane crashing seems incompatible with a no plane heory, although it could be possible that they were remote controlled. As for the plane debris, i think jesse venturas conspiracy show talked about an eyewitness to a blackbox but they hid it from the public.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM

With 47 core columns with varying thicknesses and it is extremely doubtful they would all buckle.

Steel beams are designed to withstand from one direction normally. The vertical beams of the core are designed for vertical loads. If you hit one from the side from say another steel beam, it will buckle.
Or if you twist a verticle beam it will buckle.

Did you notice any bent or twisted beams in the rubble pictures??

Once bent the load above it is going to come down.

Once the 15 floors get started they are going to buckle any beam and snap many bolts. The uneven mass from above is going to hit lower beams ay odd angles, buckeling them as it goes.
I expect that the lower floor trusses failed before the core and exerior steel gave way. Meaning the core and exterior steel had lost its lateral support.

All the experts on the planet accept this.
Only a few non experts on websites don't accept this.

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I notice you made no comment on the link I provided where the man used 12 ft. as the fall distance.

That is curious. It still shows up on a Google search and says I accessed i 7 times but now the link is dead from there also.

Here is another talking about a 12 foot drop.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik

Ok.

So what?

Do you have a point?

I can guarantee you that if you have the intellectual honesty to learn and do some research, that you will find that ANY steel framed building, and most likely any steel re-inforced concrete framed building will experience a cascade failure to the ground after a 12' fall if the building is engineered to within the normal range FoS of 2-3.

I guarantee it.

This is simple high school physics that you can do yourself without having any data from the towers.

Make up your own building... make it as big as you want..... load the structure to industry expectations.....it WILL fail..

So the Kinetic Energy of the impact is determined by the "supposed" fall through empty space not the distance above the ground.

psik

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:31 PM

Originally posted by samkent

With 47 core columns with varying thicknesses and it is extremely doubtful they would all buckle.

Steel beams are designed to withstand from one direction normally. The vertical beams of the core are designed for vertical loads. If you hit one from the side from say another steel beam, it will buckle.
Or if you twist a verticle beam it will buckle.

So you leave out what you want and expect to impress people?

With 47 core columns with varying thicknesses and it is extremely doubtful they would all buckle. Some would be knocked out of alignment and joints with horizontal beams broken.

psik

new topics

top topics

14