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: 12
14
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:55 PM

But if you can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level in the core then it doesn't make sense to make a big deal about the different amounts of energy for different types of deformation because you don't have the data anyway. You can just use words to talk vague bullsh#

OK - South Tower - Level 45-46, 426.56 tons of steel and 1517 tons of concrete. Now tell me the exact type and level of deformation of every element on that level and exactly how much energy that deformation consumed.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by hooper

But if you can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level in the core then it doesn't make sense to make a big deal about the different amounts of energy for different types of deformation because you don't have the data anyway. You can just use words to talk vague bullsh#

OK - South Tower - Level 45-46, 426.56 tons of steel and 1517 tons of concrete. Now tell me the exact type and level of deformation of every element on that level and exactly how much energy that deformation consumed.

Tell that to Varemia. He brought it up.

psik

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

But if you can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level in the core then it doesn't make sense to make a big deal about the different amounts of energy for different types of deformation because you don't have the data anyway. You can just use words to talk vague bullsh#

OK - South Tower - Level 45-46, 426.56 tons of steel and 1517 tons of concrete. Now tell me the exact type and level of deformation of every element on that level and exactly how much energy that deformation consumed.

C'mon, I gave you your distribution numbers now give us the math that proves what was observed on 9/11/2001 was not physically possible.

Tell that to Varemia. He brought it up.

psik

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:32 PM

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

But if you can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level in the core then it doesn't make sense to make a big deal about the different amounts of energy for different types of deformation because you don't have the data anyway. You can just use words to talk vague bullsh#

OK - South Tower - Level 45-46, 426.56 tons of steel and 1517 tons of concrete. Now tell me the exact type and level of deformation of every element on that level and exactly how much energy that deformation consumed.

Tell that to Varemia. He brought it up.

psik
C'mon, I gave you your distribution numbers now give us the math that proves what was observed on 9/11/2001 was not physically possible.

He is correct in that the amount of energy required is affected by how the destruction occurs. But the thickness of the steel and therefore the quantity of steel is a factor also.

But there would be more the 2.5 times as many feet of horizontal steel on each level in the core as there was of vertical steel. But how thick was it? So what was the ratio of weight and how did it change down the building? All of these things would be factors in the amount of energy required to crush each level of the core. So people claiming the buildings could collapse should have dealt with all of that long ago.

But everyone is supposed to BELIEVE without adequate data. But anyone who questions the nonsense is supposed to come up with information to prove different. But the buildings had to hold themselves up. No belief is required for that.

So the problem is the Physics Profession for not pointing out what information was needed to solve the problem in 2002.

psik

P.S. I notice that the thread begun by the Pentagon witness has disappeared. He said he was there the next day and there was not enough debris for an airliner. So why is the thread gone?

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But the math in my Python program is so simple that it cannot be disputed. 12 seconds is the minimum collapse time even without having to crush the core structure. So you need to explain why almost no energy is lost doing that crushing.

psik

Your program says that falling levels - which includes all the core columns and ext columns and floor assemblies - need to be set in motion by the falling mass.

This is a wrong assumption.

Ext columns were NOT set into motion. this is easily seen in videos.

Most of the core columns were not set into motion. This is easily seen in the "spire" videos.

those 2 points also cannot be disputed.

Therefore, your BELIEF that this program can be used as any kind of evidence pertaining to the collapse times is proven to be in error.

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But the math in my Python program is so simple that it cannot be disputed. 12 seconds is the minimum collapse time even without having to crush the core structure. So you need to explain why almost no energy is lost doing that crushing.

psik

Your program says that falling levels - which includes all the core columns and ext columns and floor assemblies - need to be set in motion by the falling mass.

The program is about MINIMUM COLLAPSE TIME it is not about explaining how the collapse occurred because the Python program is simulating masses held up by nothing. It can only be done in a computer.

Do not accuse the program of meaning what it does not or that I am claiming what I am not.

I am not interested going off debating bullsh#.

If 12 seconds is the minimum time with no supports in the simulation then any real structure of the height being simulated must take longer. But how could a real structure come down in even as little as double the time?

psik

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:54 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

If 12 seconds is the minimum time with no supports in the simulation then any real structure of the height being simulated must take longer. But how could a real structure come down in even as little as double the time?

psik

Honestly now, what would exert enough upward force to slow it down that much? You are making up expectations that fit your previously decided view.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

If 12 seconds is the minimum time with no supports in the simulation then any real structure of the height being simulated must take longer. But how could a real structure come down in even as little as double the time?

psik

Honestly now, what would exert enough upward force to slow it down that much? You are making up expectations that fit your previously decided view.

ROFLMAO

Every level must be exerting upward force to resist the downward force of weight created by gravity. You did know that the buildings held themselves up against gravity for 28 years didn't you? Why don't you go look at a skyscraper? When you are standing up don't you notice that your legs are applying upward force to hold up your torso? Plus the buildings are designed with a safety margin so they are stronger than necessary.

You just did a great job of demonstrating that you don't actually know how to think in terms of the actual physics involved in this problem.

psik

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFLMAO

Every level must be exerting upward force to resist the downward force of weight created by gravity. You did know that the buildings held themselves up against gravity for 28 years didn't you? Why don't you go look at a skyscraper? When you are standing up don't you notice that your legs are applying upward force to hold up your torso? Plus the buildings are designed with a safety margin so they are stronger than necessary.

You just did a great job of demonstrating that you don't actually know how to think in terms of the actual physics involved in this problem.

psik

You do know that there is a significantly large amount of energy from changing from static to moving, right? Basic freaking physics dude.

You do an excellent job at showing that you have no clue what you're even talking about. "Oh, the Jenga tower is meant to stand on its own! All the pieces are resisting the above piece, and there's no way the whole tower can collapse quickly once it starts to collapse!"

Seriously, stop being such a moron.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
ROFLMAO

Every level must be exerting upward force to resist the downward force of weight created by gravity. You did know that the buildings held themselves up against gravity for 28 years didn't you? Why don't you go look at a skyscraper? When you are standing up don't you notice that your legs are applying upward force to hold up your torso? Plus the buildings are designed with a safety margin so they are stronger than necessary.

You just did a great job of demonstrating that you don't actually know how to think in terms of the actual physics involved in this problem.

psik

You do know that there is a significantly large amount of energy from changing from static to moving, right? Basic freaking physics dude.

Seriously, stop being such a moron.

But I am the one with the physical model that supports itself under static conditions and then arrests under
dynamic conditions even though damage is done to the supports for the static load.

So where is your physical model with more than 20 levels that can COMPLETELY COLLAPSE under the dynamic load of 15% or less even though it can support the same mass under static conditions? You can talk but neither you nor any engineering school has produced a demonstration.

psik

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 06:25 PM

-EF

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 06:37 PM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Are you a moderator on this board?

There is nothing forcing anyone to click on the video. What is your problem?

And the fact of the matter is that the majority of threads on this board I do not even open.

I don't care about Israelis or Islam or George Bush. So you cannot accurately accuse me of spamming every thread since most of the threads do not contain posts by me.

psik
edit on 21-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 08:53 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
... the majority of threads on this board I do not even open.

I don't care about Israelis or Islam or George Bush. So you cannot accurately accuse me of spamming every thread since most of the threads do not contain posts by me.

My apologies. Your spamming does not reach every thread on the board. I was in error.

posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
... the majority of threads on this board I do not even open.

I don't care about Israelis or Islam or George Bush. So you cannot accurately accuse me of spamming every thread since most of the threads do not contain posts by me.

My apologies. Your spamming does not reach every thread on the board. I was in error.

You usually are.

You don't claim to be a moderator and I certainly don't give a sh# about someone who can't build a model that can completely collapse calling mine spam.

psik

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:57 AM
Debrie has been recovered in NY and at the pentagon, so I would guess the planes broke up in thousands of bits.

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Cassius666
Debrie has been recovered in NY and at the pentagon, so I would guess the planes broke up in thousands of bits.

But it is the quantity and weight of the bits that will limit what it was that broke up.

psik

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666
Debrie has been recovered in NY and at the pentagon, so I would guess the planes broke up in thousands of bits.

But it is the quantity and weight of the bits that will limit what it was that broke up.

psik

Fair enough, do we have any data on that?

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Cassius666
Debrie has been recovered in NY and at the pentagon, so I would guess the planes broke up in thousands of bits.

But it is the quantity and weight of the bits that will limit what it was that broke up.

psik

Fair enough, do we have any data on that?

The plane that hit the Pentagon should have had 12 wheels. Why do we always only see one picture of a wheel and it is such that the size cannot be determined? There should have been 180 passenger seats and they were connected together in threes. I have not seen one picture of a set of passenger seats from the Pentagon.

psik

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But the math in my Python program is so simple that it cannot be disputed. 12 seconds is the minimum collapse time even without having to crush the core structure. So you need to explain why almost no energy is lost doing that crushing.

psik

Your program says that falling levels - which includes all the core columns and ext columns and floor assemblies - need to be set in motion by the falling mass.

The program is about MINIMUM COLLAPSE TIME it is not about explaining how the collapse occurred because the Python program is simulating masses held up by nothing. It can only be done in a computer.

Do not accuse the program of meaning what it does not or that I am claiming what I am not.

I am not interested going off debating bullsh#.

If 12 seconds is the minimum time with no supports in the simulation then any real structure of the height being simulated must take longer. But how could a real structure come down in even as little as double the time?

psik

The results that your program gave are at issue.

You ran it with totally inappropriate conditions - columns being set into motion. This didn't happen.

Therefore it is proven that your program cannot be used as evidence of anything.

This is irrefutable.

It is similar to your video. Totally inappropriate conditions - crushing of paper loops, rather that bending/fracturing of columns. Therefore, it too cannot be used as evidence for anything useful.

This is also irrefutable.

It is your BELIEF that they prove something that is preventing you from learning anything. put away the blinders and listen to what others have been saying to you for years:

1- the upper portions of the towers indeed had PE in relation to both the first impacted floor and the ground BEFORE collapse began.
2- your video model is not evidence of anything, nor does it show any principles of anything due to the failure of the conditions set by you - crushing vs bending/fracture.
3- your Python program is also not evidence of anything, nor does it set a lower bound for collapse time cuz it ignores that actual collapse dynamics and facts.

Time for you to get a new hobby, cuz you suck at this one....

posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:29 AM

The plane that hit the Pentagon should have had 12 wheels. Why do we always only see one picture of a wheel and it is such that the size cannot be determined?

Well, why do you think? There are a few alternatives - first, nobody saw fit to publish item by item detailed photograhs of all the physical remains of the entire plane which could be linked to the idea that maybe no one saw fit to photo every last scrap of the plane and building since most rational people wouldn't be asking for such silly proof. Or - there's a giant conspiracy that is covering the fact that no plane hit the Pentagon.

There should have been 180 passenger seats and they were connected together in threes. I have not seen one picture of a set of passenger seats from the Pentagon.

And?

new topics

top topics

14