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 are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 25
20
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


And while we are at it, the points you make about waiting to destroy the buildings are kind of silly. Are you to narrow minded to believe that people would catch on if the buildings went up like roman candles the second the planes hit them? TPTB have enough problems trying to make their current fairy tale stick, let alone having to try and explain how terrorists got suitcase nukes on airplanes or into secure buildings. This storyline was in place well before the event and I am sure a lot of thought was put into how to "sell" the story to the majority of the people. They knew they could never convince all the people. But if they could convince enough people to get some sort of consensus, the believers would take care of the nonbelievers by shouting them down and marginalizing them. That is the situation we are in today. The goal was not to wipe New York off the map, that's silly. The goal was to initiate unending war with a non-existent enemy for profit and control. It is no coincidence that the result of this false flag event was just that. They new going in a number of citizens would need to be "sacrificed", but they felt the ends justified the means, as they always do. TPTB have a long, admitted, history of perpetrating these false flag events in order to justify their aggressive actions. I cannot understand why so many people refuse to believe that is the case with 9/11. Mind-boggling!




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I'm not an engineer or scientist, but I will say from the video is this-

85% of the structure was solid and undamaged, the top 15% gave way at the point of the plane's impact and came down.

The time of free fall from the top of the WTC is roughly 10 seconds. The building came down in just over 11 seconds.

Your numbers aren't too bad, it's actually closer to 8.5-9.5 seconds for free fall, and about 11-13 seconds for the collapse. Obviously it's obscured by dust so it's very hard to tell.


ARE WE SURELY TO BELIEVE THAT OVER 100 FLOORS OF SOLID STEEL STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE GAVE WAY AT THIS RATE?

The point is you don't have to be an engineer to understand that over 100 floors of solid steel and concrete would offer a lot more resistance than it did. It is unnatural.

Actually you do have to be an engineer to understand the buildings. That is after all the whole point of the degree and qualification lol! If you didn't need specialist knowledge to do this, then there's been a really big scam going on for a lot of years :p

Seriously though, go through the numbers you gave me. The actual acceleration of both collapses was around 2/3rds and 3/4g respectively. That means that a huge amount of energy was absorbed in resistance. Bear in mind that 2/3g means that the lower section slowed the acceleration by 1/3g, which is a pretty substantial amount. It is also inline with the theoretical evidence produced by structural engineers.

I don't doubt that it looks strange and impossible, but once you understand how the building was constructed, and why it was so dependent upon the outer walls, it becomes obvious.

Is there any evidence that would convince you or at least interest you that you might not have the right idea on this topic? I can definitely run through the numbers with you if you'd like.


Building's destroyed by controlled demolition do not fall at free fall, they fall in time with just over free fall speed, AKA the way the twin towers collapsed on 9/11.

Right, you're not far wrong here either. But it's important to remember that controlled demolitions do not remove any mass at all from the building collapsing. What they do is cut the support columns and make sure they fail completely. In 911, once the building started collapsing these support columns were gone, and had no chance of ever stopping the collapse. It proceeded after that point very much like a controlled demolition, in that gravity did all of the work for them.

Anyway a fairly big post in reply, I know there's a lot to take in but don't be fooled by people trying to tell you that the situation is so simple that you don't have to think about it. It takes years and years of study and a lot of motivation to get the knowledge and experience to know how these buildings respond, and we entrust our lives to these people. We owe them some respect at least!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You expect people to evaluate things on the basis of stupidly inadequate analogies.

Psikey, you built a model of of paper hoops and a broom handle and you're criticising me for providing a pertinent analogy? You might want to check the thermometer in hell!


Some LEVELS do get crushed in the collapse. But crushing those LEVELS requires energy and that comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it SLOWS DOWN.

Until it falls the next 12 feet to the next floor. Oh yes I forgot you removed that in your model didn't you?


That is why it is so absurd for EXPERTS to not demand accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers or to talk about the energy required to collapse each LEVEL.

psik

Do you really believe you're the only physics expert in the world psikey? Is this what we're building up to?

There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of physics experts. You are not one of them. None of them endorse your model, and you have admitted yourself your model does not capture any of the behaviours of the WTC with accuracy.

Please, either correct it, or stop hawking it as some irrefutable proof that you're a science expert.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You expect people to evaluate things on the basis of stupidly inadequate analogies.

Psikey, you built a model of of paper hoops and a broom handle and you're criticising me for providing a pertinent analogy? You might want to check the thermometer in hell!


Some LEVELS do get crushed in the collapse. But crushing those LEVELS requires energy and that comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it SLOWS DOWN.

Until it falls the next 12 feet to the next floor. Oh yes I forgot you removed that in your model didn't you?


That is why it is so absurd for EXPERTS to not demand accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers or to talk about the energy required to collapse each LEVEL.

psik

Do you really believe you're the only physics expert in the world psikey? Is this what we're building up to?

There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of physics experts. You are not one of them. None of them endorse your model, and you have admitted yourself your model does not capture any of the behaviours of the WTC with accuracy.

Please, either correct it, or stop hawking it as some irrefutable proof that you're a science expert.


Are you saying that your words can either cause or prevent paper loops to defy the Laws of Physics.

I already told you that the NIST said they needed the weight distribution to analyze the plane impact.

NIST NCSTAR 1-5D
Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to
Shocks


2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

page 40

So they are simply agreeing with what I have been saying but then they don't get the data and do the analysis.

I demonstrated that effect with one of my models years ago, and that was before I did the collapse model. I didn't think there was an inexpensive way to do a collapse. But by demonstrating the principles instead of actually modeling the buildings it is workable.

But yes it looks like a lot of people claiming to know physics are full of crap. They are not agreeing with what the NIST says there and they are not demanding the data.

Or are you saying that the NIST is wrong? Are you complaining about me agreeing with the NIST?

Your blather about 12 feet could only apply to the floor assemblies outside the core. It was 12 feet from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next. The floor plus the truss was about two feet high so it would only be a 10 foot fall. But notice that you never specify how many connections must be broken around the inner and outer perimeters of those floors for them to break loose. Wouldn't PHYSICS EXPERTS have to take that into account? How much energy would be required to break all of them?

psik

edit on 27-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you saying that your words can either cause or prevent paper loops to defy the Laws of Physics.

Not at all, as a physics model your paper loops work beautifully.

As a WTC model however, they don't work at all.


But yes it looks like a lot of people claiming to know physics are full of crap. They are not agreeing with what the NIST says there and they are not demanding the data.

So wait, are you saying every physics expert that agrees with NIST doesn't know what they're talking about?


You Blather about 12 feet could only apply to the floor assemblies outside the core. It was 12 feet from the surface of one floor to the surface of the next. The floor plus the truss was about two feet high so it would only be a 10 foot fall.

10 feet would be fine with me if you were going to fix your model, you're not though are you?


But notice that you never specify how many connections must be broken around the inner and outer perimeters of those floors for them to break loose. Wouldn't PHYSICS EXPERTS have to take that into account?
psik
edit on 27-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

They would. They did.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
I'm not an engineer or scientist, but I will say from the video is this-

85% of the structure was solid and undamaged, the top 15% gave way at the point of the plane's impact and came down.

The time of free fall from the top of the WTC is roughly 10 seconds. The building came down in just over 11 seconds.

Your numbers aren't too bad, it's actually closer to 8.5-9.5 seconds for free fall, and about 11-13 seconds for the collapse. Obviously it's obscured by dust so it's very hard to tell.


ARE WE SURELY TO BELIEVE THAT OVER 100 FLOORS OF SOLID STEEL STRUCTURE AND CONCRETE GAVE WAY AT THIS RATE?

The point is you don't have to be an engineer to understand that over 100 floors of solid steel and concrete would offer a lot more resistance than it did. It is unnatural.

Actually you do have to be an engineer to understand the buildings. That is after all the whole point of the degree and qualification lol! If you didn't need specialist knowledge to do this, then there's been a really big scam going on for a lot of years :p

Seriously though, go through the numbers you gave me. The actual acceleration of both collapses was around 2/3rds and 3/4g respectively. That means that a huge amount of energy was absorbed in resistance. Bear in mind that 2/3g means that the lower section slowed the acceleration by 1/3g, which is a pretty substantial amount. It is also inline with the theoretical evidence produced by structural engineers.

I don't doubt that it looks strange and impossible, but once you understand how the building was constructed, and why it was so dependent upon the outer walls, it becomes obvious.

Is there any evidence that would convince you or at least interest you that you might not have the right idea on this topic? I can definitely run through the numbers with you if you'd like.


Building's destroyed by controlled demolition do not fall at free fall, they fall in time with just over free fall speed, AKA the way the twin towers collapsed on 9/11.

Right, you're not far wrong here either. But it's important to remember that controlled demolitions do not remove any mass at all from the building collapsing. What they do is cut the support columns and make sure they fail completely. In 911, once the building started collapsing these support columns were gone, and had no chance of ever stopping the collapse. It proceeded after that point very much like a controlled demolition, in that gravity did all of the work for them.

Anyway a fairly big post in reply, I know there's a lot to take in but don't be fooled by people trying to tell you that the situation is so simple that you don't have to think about it. It takes years and years of study and a lot of motivation to get the knowledge and experience to know how these buildings respond, and we entrust our lives to these people. We owe them some respect at least!


Hold on a second. The support columns were "gone" once the building started collapsing? Do you actually believe that jet fuel "melted" the columns? If not, where exactly did they go? Did they turn to dust? Or is this just another in the long list of events from that day that defy common sense? At least you finally admitted that the collapse of the buildings looked like a controlled demolition. You just refuse to admit that could be a possibility. I agree with you 100%, in order for the buildings to collapse like that the columns would have to be taken out of the way. I believe they were cut with charges and you think they were just gone. Who makes more sense?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by scully222
Hold on a second. The support columns were "gone" once the building started collapsing? Do you actually believe that jet fuel "melted" the columns? If not, where exactly did they go? Did they turn to dust? Or is this just another in the long list of events from that day that defy common sense?

No no, nothing like that. What I mean is, after any of the load bearing elements around WTC 1/2's floors have deformed by less than a foot, they've broken and are no longer connected. The point is that columns don't slowly shrink down, they bend and snap or the connections between them break.


At least you finally admitted that the collapse of the buildings looked like a controlled demolition. You just refuse to admit that could be a possibility.

I have never denied that WTC7 can look superficially similar to a controlled demolition. It's the strongest talking point that exists within the 'truth movement' and you see it everywhere. I don't refuse to admit that controlled demolition is a possibility, I just won't believe in it until someone gives me more than just 'a possibility'. It's also possible that a bunch of elite hackers set up the situation with WTC7 in order to go in there and steal the CIA's secret files! Do I have any evidence? No. Same thing.


I agree with you 100%, in order for the buildings to collapse like that the columns would have to be taken out of the way. I believe they were cut with charges and you think they were just gone. Who makes more sense?

Well I can explain how they were taken out of the way, which ones were and roughly when and there's good evidence to show that this is the case.

On the other hand you can't tell me which columns, when, where, and the only evidence is a similar look and the idea that mention of explosions = explosives.

I don't really mean to be having a go at you here, so please don't take it personally. I'm just saying that from my perspective there's a lot of posting of suspicious items, but very little resolving into actual evidence, and it's hard to be convinced by it.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
But notice that you never specify how many connections must be broken around the inner and outer perimeters of those floors for them to break loose. Wouldn't PHYSICS EXPERTS have to take that into account?
psik

They would. They did.


LOL

Nice claim. Where is the link to support your claim?

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Nice claim. Where is the link to support your claim?

psik


Psikey, let's not play games here. I can link you to the NIST report if you like, but you know that you will not accept anything unless it gives a list of "tons of steel and tons of concrete".

It's the truth isn't it? That no matter what I could provide you, you're going to fall back on wanting something that doesn't exist and likely will never exist?

I just don't want to continue this spiral with you, on a personal level I don't think it's particularly appropriate.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by scully222
 


Look up what made the connections. Do you even know? And psy, there are computers now. Put down the abacus and the washers.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by scully222
 


Look up what made the connections. Do you even know? And psy, there are computers now. Put down the abacus and the washers.
.

On the 0 to 10 funny scale I will give that about a 2.

The concrete floor was 600 tons. They were strong enough to hold that plus the live load. That is what matters. I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. I have not seen you quote it.

When the Empire State Building was designed there were no electronic computers which just goes to emphasize what fools the physicists have made of themselves. But steel and concrete have mass and therefore weight and inertia and must be supported against gravity. So people who cannot see the relevance of my model only demonstrate their stupidity or that they are liars.

The kinetic energy of the falling mass must crush the supports which had to be stron enough to hold the weight of the static load.

I didn't see any objections from you when I explained the square cube law.

What is stopping you from building a model that can collapse completely using something other than washers. You can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars, I won't mind.

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by scully222
 


And psy, there are computers now.


Computers are only as good as the input, and can be fudged. A physical model will always trump a computer model.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're either exhausted or were in a rush, and didn't double check what you posted. Otherwise, I will need to ask you who the heck are "my buddies who believe the gov't is perfectly capable of aiding the terrorists take control of the plane".? If you don't believe anything else I say, then at least believe this- my buddies in the real world think you truthers are [censored] in the head (their words, not mine). You should be thankful that I'm trying to convince others that you're really not [censored] in the head, but instead you're simply swallowing the paranoid drivel coming fromn those damned fool conspiracy websites.


Here's one. Maybe I should have used “debunkers” instead of “buddies”

post by Varemia

I can see agents of the government "allowing" an attack to take place in order to further an agenda, but the conspiracy toted on this site is just too far-reaching to be plausible.




Yo've got to be kidding me. You're seriously telling me that Bush, a C average party boy who never grew up, was an expert on every gov't and military report long before he was ever even elected? Are you suffering selective amnesia and conspicuously forgetting how the entire world thought he was a complete idiot?


National Security Advisor wasn’t told by Clark during the transition or she wasn’t listening to Clark or maybe she did know and simply lied about It ? Did she deserve a promotion in the second term ?


Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”



Graham asserts that “after September 11, members of the Bush administration would claim that nobody could have imagined that planes might be used as weapons, during the course of our inquiry, we found that the possibility had been imagined, investigated, and interdicted more than once, and that in one case the Pentagon had been a target”! 

9/11 THREATS ABOUT AIRPLANES AS WEAPONS PRIOR TO 9/11



...and yet we found out about every single one of them, either from outsiders coming forward to spill the beans, inquisitive journalists, or the government's own incompetence...and yet despite all those other fiascos being exposed, the sinister secret agents were able to keep THIS mega conspiracy of yours secret, despite being more complex and convoluted than all of those others put together times 100. Thank you for mentioning this, as you've just proved my point and disproved yours.


And we are finding out details of a cover up all the time you just ignore them. There is enough information to suspect foul play by the government, we need to investigate It. How do you know what else they are covering up?


Wait a minute- are you seriously comparing Clinton getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky with secret plots to take over the world?

No. this is an example of a President lying to the Congress. The bottom line is that they lie about almost everything they do. Why should anybody believe them about 9/11 if they got caught lying about prior knowledge, and they got caught destroying classified documents ?


How many times do I have to say this- there are numeous logical reasons for what we saw happening. It's just that you're intentionally ignoring them all and have a pressing need to go straight to the illogical ones. You people certainly aren't stupid, ypou're just listening to a lot of paranoid crackpots who aren't allowing you to think for yourselves.



My point was that you dismissed the FBI report based on another victims family members testimony.

Page 16



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Nice claim. Where is the link to support your claim?

psik


Psikey, let's not play games here. I can link you to the NIST report if you like, but you know that you will not accept anything unless it gives a list of "tons of steel and tons of concrete".

It's the truth isn't it? That no matter what I could provide you, you're going to fall back on wanting something that doesn't exist and likely will never exist?

I just don't want to continue this spiral with you, on a personal level I don't think it's particularly appropriate.


So you can come up with an excuse for not providing what you claim exists. I am so impressed. But I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. You don't need to provide me with links to that. Just specify the report number and the page number. But I thought you were talking about something other than the NIST.

I already provided a quote where the NIST admitted that the information was necessary but that they did not have it in 2003. So what have they gotten since then?

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you can come up with an excuse for not providing what you claim exists. I am so impressed. But I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. You don't need to provide me with links to that. Just specify the report number and the page number. But I thought you were talking about something other than the NIST.

There are a number of people other than NIST who have looked at this problem, but we both already know you will not accept their words alone, and you will not take the data from the NIST report and verify it as Gregory Urich did.

If you can tell me something that exists and could be provided to you to change your mind even slightly I would, but anyone can google "tons of steel and tons of concrete" (including the quotes) and find thousands of posts by you, repeating exactly the same thing.

I don't think it's a healthy thing to be doing, and I can't in good conscience have anything to do with encouraging it. If you can come up with something that would satisfy you and is possible, I will do my best, but otherwise I think it is healthier if I do not provoke you.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Wow what a cop out. Just provide the link.

Typical, lot's of text that says nothing. What does it pay per word these days? Just kidding



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Wow what a cop out. Just provide the link.

Typical, lot's of text that says nothing. What does it pay per word these days? Just kidding

The problem is that there's no one link that does what he asks. Throughout the investigation NIST built up models from the various parts they tested, and many times denoted exactly what angle clips were in use and where. They have tables of shear strengths and failures, and they have lists of floors and flooring types.

Putting this together is a pain in the ass, and really I just don't think it would help Psikey. If I thought it would I would post it, but I have tried before and immediately it's back to "tons of steel and tons of concrete" and even though a reasonable answer exists, it is just not sufficient enough no matter what.

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtrusive here, but I just don't feel right pushing someone who's already fairly obsessed with a single topic. Hope you understand.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So you can come up with an excuse for not providing what you claim exists. I am so impressed. But I have the NCSTAR1 report burned to DVD. You don't need to provide me with links to that. Just specify the report number and the page number. But I thought you were talking about something other than the NIST.

There are a number of people other than NIST who have looked at this problem, but we both already know you will not accept their words alone, and you will not take the data from the NIST report and verify it as Gregory Urich did.

If you can tell me something that exists and could be provided to you to change your mind even slightly I would, but anyone can google "tons of steel and tons of concrete" (including the quotes) and find thousands of posts by you, repeating exactly the same thing.

I don't think it's a healthy thing to be doing, and I can't in good conscience have anything to do with encouraging it. If you can come up with something that would satisfy you and is possible, I will do my best, but otherwise I think it is healthier if I do not provoke you.


On Gregory Urich's website I told him where his data contradicts a magazine article from 1970, Engineering Record News, I think it is called. Urich took the total weight of the perimeter wall panels and did a linear interpolation from the 9th floor to the top of the building. But Urich is saying that the panels at the 9th floor were 19 tons. The article says the heaviest panels were 22 tons. But if you try to do a linear interpolation with 22 tons at the bottom the weight of the panels at the top must be less than zero which is impossible.

Obviously the distribution down the building is NOT LINEAR, which makes perfect sense in relation to what skyscrapers must do to hold themselves up. So Urich's data has too much weight at the top and not enough at the bottom which would increase the probability of collapse assuming the building could hold itself up. Are we supposed to assume the designers distributed the steel wrong?

But there are more than 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. This entire lack of information is totally ridiculous. The NIST should have told us the quantity and weights of every different gage of the 2800 panels on each building. Like they could not have fit that in 10,000 pages. In fact Richard Gage not making a BIG DEAL about it is ridiculous. But if he did that it would make his fellow architects look even more silly wouldn't it. How much does he really want to piss all of them off?

But this involve physicists and structural engineers also. Because it means all of these people are making concepts which are not too difficult to understand appear as though they cannot be comprehended without years of schooling. Schools do not give people INTELLIGENCE. Only knowledge. And some knowledge is so simple all you need is a decent book with a good explanation.

So what will happen if large numbers of people start deciding that the EXPERTS have been jiving them.

The politicians want to talk about STEM education but collapse experiments about the WTC are not allowed.

That is funny!


psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by scully222
 


Look up what made the connections. Do you even know? And psy, there are computers now. Put down the abacus and the washers.


I supplied a Python program with source code that computed the collapse time under impossibly magical conditions. If the masses were equal the minimum collapse time was 12 seconds. Under bottom heavy conditions it's 14 seconds. Dr Sunder of the NIST told NPR that the north tower came down in 11 seconds.

The airliner and fire induced collapse time is IMPOSSIBLE.

So your computer simulation does what?

psik



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
On Gregory Urich's website I told him where his data contradicts a magazine article from 1970, Engineering Record News, I think it is called. Urich took the total weight of the perimeter wall panels and did a linear interpolation from the 9th floor to the top of the building. But Urich is saying that the panels at the 9th floor were 19 tons. The article says the heaviest panels were 22 tons. But if you try to do a linear interpolation with 22 tons at the bottom the weight of the panels at the top must be less than zero which is impossible.

So you are arguing about a difference of 3 tons per panel? The floors you're talking about weigh something like 4000 tons in total, you're dismissing evidence over a potential difference of about 1%, far below the uncertainty of many other variables.

Surely you can see how that is a ridiculous accuracy goal? To have numbers accurate to within 1% for a building built in the 70s, significantly modified and then destroyed over a decade ago? It's just silly.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
20
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join