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.

 

What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 9
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Exactly this is furthmore More proof of how A Missle burns in comparison to a Jet liner loaded with fuel... Thank you I had forgoten this aspect... Well done sir! As its been noted before the Explosion itself differs completey with the Tower Explosions.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

The potential energy is transformed not only into kinetic energy, but also into work done in the act of bending steel, crushing concrete, shattering glass, etc. The difference between the velocity achieved, and the velocity achieved if no resistance were encountered can be assumed to be work done overcoming the structure below.


Doesn't that happen in the collision after the falling mass has been given kinetic energy?

You can assume whatever you want. How can you figure out the energy required to bend the steel if you don't even know the quantity of steel on each level?

psik



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



You can assume whatever you want. How can you figure out the energy required to bend the steel if you don't even know the quantity of steel on each level?


The question is moot (but the answer is in the NIST report, you should give it a read sometime) because unless you know the strength of the steel and the exact degree to which every piece was damaged or deformed (if at all) all the weight data in the world is useless.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





How can you figure out the energy required to bend the steel if you don't even know the quantity of steel on each level?

You don't need to know the quantity for each level. Just one piece at a time. Plus the energy needed is far lower when the temperature of the metal is very high.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Doesn't that happen in the collision after the falling mass has been given kinetic energy?

You can assume whatever you want. How can you figure out the energy required to bend the steel if you don't even know the quantity of steel on each level?

psik


After all this time, haven't you spent even a single moment using the blueprints of the towers to calculate the amount of steel on each level, and then calculate the weight and potential energy? It seems like you're all talk and no action, psikey.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



After all this time, haven't you spent even a single moment using the blueprints of the towers to calculate the amount of steel on each level, and then calculate the weight and potential energy? It seems like you're all talk and no action, psikey.


Of course he hasn't. You have to understand his twisted argument. You see, if no one in authority made these calculations based on the data that he says is critical then no one actually calculated if, in fact, the building could have collapsed based on the observed conditions, that is to say, the plane struck the building, the fire, impact and explosion destroyed a sufficient amount of the supporting structure at or near the point of impact casuing the portion of the building above the impact point to proceed as gravity dictated, through the remainder of the building to termination on the ground. Psi contends that the only way to know if that is possible is to know the weight of the concrete and steel on each "level" (whatever that means). And since no one in authority has published the data with the calcualtions accordingly than that means they are hiding the actual cause of the collapse.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


The white flash in Flight 77 explosion brightens the whole scene, and throws igniting fuel and plane parts over the roof. It is different than those minimal pre-ignition puffs in Flight 11 and 175 footage.
So what weapon is that?
There is a heliport beside which is routinely used by the president. A motorway runs nearby with relatively easy access to the area, and to the Pentagon wall. It has been denied, but surely there must be a fast-acting defensive system against possible truck bombs etc. Aircraft carriers have Goal-Tender -type guns that shreds anything that comes close. That´s my guess.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Doesn't that happen in the collision after the falling mass has been given kinetic energy?

You can assume whatever you want. How can you figure out the energy required to bend the steel if you don't even know the quantity of steel on each level?

psik


After all this time, haven't you spent even a single moment using the blueprints of the towers to calculate the amount of steel on each level, and then calculate the weight and potential energy? It seems like you're all talk and no action, psikey.


The blueprints I have seen show the locations of the toilets in the core not the positions of the horizontal beams much less their thickness. So we are told by the OS supporters that the information is out there but it is not. Lon Waters has the core columns detailed on his website but no data on horizontal beams. Gregory Urich admits he did an interpolation on the perimeter columns and his data on the 9th level does not match a 1970 engineering article.

So everybody is supposed to believe and most people don't investigate. What information there is, is scattered around. So we have ten years of nonsense. And then the physics profession mostly does not touch the subject. Very curious psychology about a subject with nothing to do with psychology. Physicists refusing to do physics. Getting the sky correct in a movie is more important.

We can always wonder what would have happened if the majority of physicists had announced in 2002 that there is no way the results of airliner impacts could have done that.
Of course now they will look pretty silly if they make such an announcement.


psik



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by YetSharkproof
 





It has been denied, but surely there must be a fast-acting defensive system against possible truck bombs etc.

And they still don't.

Imagine a fully electronic defense system. Too much potential for a false trigger with the loss of inocent people.
Imagine troops on the roof with 50 cal's. Who gives the order to shoot? How long will that take? Boom! Too late.

Is the White House truly safe? Two trucks, one to take out the barriers and the other to drive up to the door?

Are you going to do the same for the main FBI building? CIA? We have far too many vital buildings to defend that way.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



So everybody is supposed to believe and most people don't investigate.

Well, you've been asking everyone to believe you when you state that such and such data is uber critical and you have yet to prove its in the least bit relevant.

What information there is, is scattered around.

Read the NIST report.

So we have ten years of nonsense.

From you. And your copy paper loops and hardware store washers models that is supposedly acting like the collapsing world trade center.

And then the physics profession mostly does not touch the subject.

Mostly???? Try completely and utterly. Because its nonsensical.

Very curious psychology about a subject with nothing to do with psychology.

Actually this ALL about psychology and sociology. Nothing to do with science and physics and engineering.

Physicists refusing to do physics.

I think you mean physicists refusing to do what you tell them to do.

Getting the sky correct in a movie is more important.

Than pursuing your twisted arguments? Yes.

We can always wonder what would have happened if the majority of physicists had announced in 2002 that there is no way the results of airliner impacts could have done that.

But they didn't. Think about that. Millions and millions of engineers, physicists, and other persons in the technical professions. Millions. And according to you they're either all wrong, all in on it, or all dumber than you. You think its impossible for an the impact of airliner to damage a building? Well I think its impossible that you are smarter than everyone in the whole world and yet you can't seem to figure out how to read a report in 7 years.

Of course now they will look pretty silly if they make such an announcement.

Silly ain't the word.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, if you use logic, not having the horizontal beams can only work in your advantage when calculating energy. The mass will calculate lower than it should be, and if you are able to calculate more energy than is needed to collapse even without the horizontal mass, then you will have proven the official story.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


I agree that the price for firing defensive weapons within city is too high. But that´s looking from a public point. That is also the reason why the same public will see no real footage of the Pentagon attack.

The reasoning for how did the plane fit in the too-small imprint on the Pentagon facade is that the plane was not intact at the impact moment.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by YetSharkproof
 



The reasoning for how did the plane fit in the too-small imprint.....

Too small? Says who?

....on the Pentagon facade is that the plane was not intact at the impact moment.

Well, thats a new one. Please continue.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, if you use logic, not having the horizontal beams can only work in your advantage when calculating energy. The mass will calculate lower than it should be, and if you are able to calculate more energy than is needed to collapse even without the horizontal mass, then you will have proven the official story.


So your concept of LOGIC does not involve TRUTH apparently.

It is not about my advantage. It is about figuring out what could and could not happen. That means having accurate data. It means wondering why physicists and structural engineers in the United States do not insist on it and it being public.

psik



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




It means wondering why physicists and structural engineers in the United States do not insist on it and it being public.

It's because physicists ans structural engineers understand all the physics involved.
You don't.
That's why they have the degree and you don't.
edit on 11-4-2012 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It means wondering why physicists and structural engineers in the United States do not insist on it and it being public.
It's because physicists ans structural engineers understand all the physics involved.
You don't.
That's why they have the degree and you don't.


That must be why none of them have tried or even claimed to try and build a model that can completely collapse by damaging its own components.



Where us yours by the way?

Intellectual imperialism must be maintained. We can't have everyone understanding that the experts are either stupid or liars.

psik



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That must be why none of them have tried or even claimed to try and build a model that can completely collapse by damaging its own components.


Please look up "fracture critical".



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



That must be why none of them have tried or even claimed to try and build a model that can completely collapse by damaging its own components.


Please look up "fracture critical".


Well whoop-dee-doo you can come up with another piece of irrelevant jargon.

But anyone can do a computer simulation of 109 mass floating in space supported by nothing and determine that a collapse with NO FRACTURES takes a minimum of 12 seconds. So how could a structure with 109 levels that HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support the weight come down in 25 seconds even if there were critical fractures at every level? Creating the fractures would still require energy which would slow the falling mass.

But then you can't come up with a shred of evidence about critical fracturing you can just throw the term around.

psik



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Well whoop-dee-doo you can come up with another piece of irrelevant jargon.

Irrelevant jargon? Sorry thats basic physics and engineering. Which, of course to you, is irrelevant jargon.

But anyone can do a computer simulation of 109 mass floating in space supported by nothing and determine that a collapse with NO FRACTURES takes a minimum of 12 seconds. So how could a structure with 109 levels that HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support the weight come down in 25 seconds even if there were critical fractures at every level? Creating the fractures would still require energy which would slow the falling mass.

How long does it take to fracture something? Once you overload an element how long does the actual fracture, the actual break take? Is it measured in weeks or milliseconds?

But then you can't come up with a shred of evidence about critical fracturing you can just throw the term around.

Hey - you're the one that said that they can't build a model that would collapse by damagaing its components and I just proved you're completely wrong.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

But anyone can do a computer simulation of 109 mass floating in space supported by nothing and determine that a collapse with NO FRACTURES takes a minimum of 12 seconds. So how could a structure with 109 levels that HAD TO BE STRONG ENOUGH to support the weight come down in 25 seconds even if there were critical fractures at every level? Creating the fractures would still require energy which would slow the falling mass.

How long does it take to fracture something? Once you overload an element how long does the actual fracture, the actual break take? Is it measured in weeks or milliseconds?


You brought it up you give us a number. Whatever you come up with has to be added to the 12 seconds caused by the conservation of momentum. But we know the total collapse time, including the spire, is 25 seconds.

So you explain how all of your supposed fractures down the building could take less than 14 seconds.

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?

psik
edit on 12-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join