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: 30
20
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is not an analogy to the towers. Thinking in terms of analogy is DUMB.


Well that should come as interesting news to pretty much every physicist alive, since everyone up to and including Stephen Hawking uses analogies to make their points easier to understand.


About 300 year old Newtonian physics that he can build models for?

That is one of the nice things about physics having gotten so philosophical in that last few decades. They can talk endlessly and debate endlessly and prove nothing.


The initial progress in 1984 and 1985 was so rapid and dramatic that many people had the feeling that we would push it all the way to the finish line within a few years or even months. That hasn't happened. Twenty years later the jury is still out. We don't know if string theory is the correct theory of nature or not. Taking that last step to getting some kind of direct evidence, making a prediction that is then experimentally verified, has been more difficult than many people had anticipated back in 1984.

www.flonnet.com...

psik




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

About 300 year old Newtonian physics that he can build models for?


Well, Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed and is confined to a wheelchair so he isn't going to be building much of anything...but you don't even need to build a model. All you need is a few sentences- sit a small child on a swing set next to a large child on the same swing set, and you will find it takes more force to push the larger child than it takes to push the smaller child. Congratulations: you just learned Newton's second law of motion- the greater the mass of the object being accelerated, the greater the force needed to accelerate the object.

What's funny is that I just explained Newton's second law of motion in about a minute when you couldn't even do it in all the months and months of posting here. Guess what that says about your credibility.


That is one of the nice things about physics having gotten so philosophical in that last few decades. They can talk endlessly and debate endlessly and prove nothing.


The problem isn't that they can't prove anything. The problem is that you have zero actual background in physics so you are invariably introducing junk physics due to your poor understanding of the subject. Can you even explain where you actually first learned what "conservation of motion" is?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

No it doesn't. This statement alone indicates you have never had any formal physics or engineering schooling at the appropriate level. Bazant also defeats this criticism completely in one of the papers I linked.


Yes it does because it doesn't account for equal and opposite reaction.

Where does it defeat this?

It obvioulsy doesn't because Bazant claims the top section stayed in one piece crushing the rest of the building, then miraculously crushing itself at the end. That would not happen, and if he considered equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum, his theory would fail.


It's nonsense, the fundamental principles and equations used do not allow for 'ignoring Newtons 3rd law'. It is simply not possible to do.


Of course it is. Ignore the fact the that both impacting floors would receive the exact same force, and pretend that velocity and 'dynamic loading' are more important. Easy to ignore.



On the contrary, my results on an entirely simple model prove it beyond all doubt. Notice the trends in energy dissipiation between impacts from the top section and impacts towards the lower section.


What results? What you just stated makes no sense. Trends in energy dissipation? Energy dissipation has nothing to do with equal opposite reaction...

Please explain what this statement means to you...

“For every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force.”
www.studyphysics.ca...

I hope your answer is this...


Anytime an object applies a force to another object, there is an equal and opposite force back on the original object.

www.studyphysics.ca...

Do you understand what that means? That means two floors of equal mass cannot impact and one floor be crushed and the other floor not be crushed. That is complete nonsense and ignores the laws of motion.
Even without equal opposite reaction you have momentum conservation.


For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Do you understand what that means? It means both object will want to maintain their momentum, but they can't because they hit resistance and so are damaged.

Damage causes loss in Ke, when enough Ke is lost it cannot overcome resistance, so the collapse would slow and eventually stop, long before it could be complete.

If it was as you claim there would be stacks of floors in the footprint. Energy is required to both crush floors and break connections, usually in a pancake collapse there is not enough energy to do both, thus you get stacks of floors like 'pancakes'.


As the building descends, the forces against the upper section become lower and lower due to the growth of a compacted layer of debris. This is with all upper floors broken from their supports and not interconnected. The worst possible case for collapse speed.


No that is not how it works, the forces on two colliding objects is always equal, there is no lowering of forces due to debris lol.

BTW the rubble, as evidenced by post collapse pics did not stay within the footprint.


ANOK admit your ignorance, please stop acting as if you are a physics expert, when you've clearly never had the schooling to understand the equations presented to you.


No ignorance to admit, but thanx for allowing me to correct your ignorance. I've never claimed to be a physics expert, a high school kid could school you on physics. Are you not trying to claim to be an expert and putting down anything and everything anyone says about physics? All you have is authority telling you how to think, you think they're right, you don't know they're right. I have taken courses in engineering and physics though, what have you taken, how to appeal to authority and believe on faith alone?


edit on 5/30/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes it does because it doesn't account for equal and opposite reaction.

Where does it defeat this?

It obvioulsy doesn't because Bazant claims the top section stayed in one piece crushing the rest of the building, then miraculously crushing itself at the end. That would not happen, and if he considered equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum, his theory would fail.

Not only is this fully explained in the paper, but it doesn't even make sense. Here is the equation for an inelastic collision:
velocity = (m_1v_1+m_2v_2)/(m_1+m_2)

Please show me where there should be a 'third law term' here. Of course there isn't one, and there isn't one in any equation that would be used. This is because these equations are built around the laws. The fact that you still don't understand this despite calling yourself an expert on physics is embarassing. This is something you learn before the end of high school in the USA. Have you finished High School? What was your physics final grade?


Do you understand what that means? That means two floors of equal mass cannot impact and one floor be crushed and the other floor not be crushed. That is complete nonsense and ignores the laws of motion.

Have you even read Bazant's paper? This sentence would indicate not. How can you still be this ignorant about what you are arguing against. It's been nearly 10 years since he published his first paper and you still haven't bothered to read and understand it.


No that is not how it works, the forces on two colliding objects is always equal, there is no lowering of forces due to debris lol.

My own equations prove that this is the case. If you don't believe so, then you are welcome to present evidence that my results are wrong. Of course, I haven't published my code yet so you will have to write your own equations. As a physics expert I expect this will take you no time at all.

Please present us with a variation of the standard 'force equation' f=ma which includes a 'third law term' so that we can see just how a third law should fit into these equations. Of course you won't do this, and people can hopefully watch you fail.


Are you not trying to claim to be an expert and putting down anything and everything anyone says about physics?

No, I am not an expert. I am simply educated.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Hey exponent!

Since your data is listed from 0 to 110 you actually have 111 levels. Urich does mention the roof in his "essay".

What is #110 which is the 111th if the building had 110 floors and yet you say 412 meters is where the bottom of floor 110 should be? I mean if 0 is the 1st floor, and 1 is the 2nd floor, and 2 is the 3rd floor, etc., then 110 is what? If it is the roof then it should not be at 412 meters.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes it does because it doesn't account for equal and opposite reaction.

Where does it defeat this?

It obvioulsy doesn't because Bazant claims the top section stayed in one piece crushing the rest of the building, then miraculously crushing itself at the end. That would not happen, and if he considered equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum, his theory would fail.

Not only is this fully explained in the paper, but it doesn't even make sense. Here is the equation for an inelastic collision:
velocity = (m_1v_1+m_2v_2)/(m_1+m_2)

Please show me where there should be a 'third law term' here. Of course there isn't one, and there isn't one in any equation that would be used. This is because these equations are built around the laws. The fact that you still don't understand this despite calling yourself an expert on physics is embarassing. This is something you learn before the end of high school in the USA. Have you finished High School? What was your physics final grade?


The third law manifests itself by the final velocity being less than the higher of the two starting velocities and greater than the lower of the two starting velocities. How much greater or lesser depends on the ratio of the masses.

I was trying to run your data through my code last night. I am tentatively getting 12.139 seconds. Still no dramatic difference. But how do you have 111 masses if the top one is not the roof?

psik
edit on 31-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Not only is this fully explained in the paper, but it doesn't even make sense. Here is the equation for an inelastic collision:
velocity = (m_1v_1+m_2v_2)/(m_1+m_2)


Math is not physics. How does velocity = (m_1v_1+m_2v_2)/(m_1+m_2) explain what I'm asking you?

Please show me where equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, were mentioned. If it isn't mentioned, then how about you showing us you understand by explaining it yourself. I know physics and engineering, but I'm not a math major. A simple collision between objects (floors) does not need calculations to explain. IF you understand the calculations, you should be able to explain in plain English why equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, was not observed in the collapses.

Because It's not in the calculations, even if you think it is, you just pretend to understand. If it was correctly accounted for then he would never have tried to claim the ridiculous crush-down, crush-up nonsense. Simple plain English can explain why it wouldn't happen, so you should be able to explain why it could, in plain English, IF you truly understand.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Do you understand what that means? That means two floors of equal mass cannot impact and one floor be crushed and the other floor not be crushed. That is complete nonsense and ignores the laws of motion.
Even without equal opposite reaction you have momentum conservation.



Slight problem with your claim- it wasn't two floors of equal mass hitting each other. It was a mass of twenty or so floors hitting the mass of a single floor. Every video of the collapse shows the upper section of the building falling and crushing each floor individually one at a time like dominos, NOT as a single unit of construction as you're attempting to claim, and it's already been pointed out to you that the floors were supported entirely by horizontal braces so no floor gave structural support to any other floor.

If you attempt to deny this, you will be lying.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

About 300 year old Newtonian physics that he can build models for?


Well, Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed and is confined to a wheelchair so he isn't going to be building much of anything..


Has Stephen Hawking ever said anything about collapsing skyscrapers?

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Since your data is listed from 0 to 110 you actually have 111 levels. Urich does mention the roof in his "essay".

What is #110 which is the 111th if the building had 110 floors and yet you say 412 meters is where the bottom of floor 110 should be? I mean if 0 is the 1st floor, and 1 is the 2nd floor, and 2 is the 3rd floor, etc., then 110 is what? If it is the roof then it should not be at 412 meters.

I thought I already went through this. I set the mass up for minimum PE. You're welcome to use the masses placed higher up if you'd like, I just wanted to minimise any criticisms. If I got the levels wrong please feel free to correct them.

Rest is in response to ANOK

Originally posted by ANOK
Math is not physics. How does velocity = (m_1v_1+m_2v_2)/(m_1+m_2) explain what I'm asking you?

Please show me where equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, were mentioned.

It was not mentioned as it is inherently a property of the equations used. Momentum conservation is a law, and as a result it describes the rules by which a system is modelled. The equations we use are built upon that system, they cannot exist without the conservation of momentum. The only way to calculate without acknowledging these laws is to do something like Gordon Ross' double counting.

We just had a fairly major emergency in the UK so I'm going to wrap this up pretty quickly, we can cover anything else in further posts.


IF you understand the calculations, you should be able to explain in plain English why equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, was not observed in the collapses.

It was observed in the collapses. No physical system can defy these laws, that's why they are called 'laws'.


Because It's not in the calculations, even if you think it is, you just pretend to understand. If it was correctly accounted for then he would never have tried to claim the ridiculous crush-down, crush-up nonsense. Simple plain English can explain why it wouldn't happen, so you should be able to explain why it could, in plain English, IF you truly understand.

Certainly. Using the model me + psikey are using means there are suspended floating masses representing the floors. We drop one group on another from say the 90th floor. When the two meet, they will destroy each other and the supports holding the floor up. This turns them into rubble (essentially using up Kinetic Energy) and expels some of the debris.

At this point we have a lower block 'A' made of 88 intact floors. We have a rubble block 'B' made of 2 'rubbleised' floors. We have an intact upper block 'C'. From this point, the behaviour depends on how much KE was lost in the initial collision. Either the upper block will hit the rubble block first, or the lower block will hit the rubble block.

If the upper block impacts the rubble block, it is doing so while the rubble block moves away from it. If the rubble block impacts the lower block, then it is doing so at rest. The resulting velocities result in a difference in the impact force.

As a natural consequence, the upper block will experience significantly lower impact forces as soon as a rubble block has formed.

That's my quick summary, now I have to go fix a big network. Back in 10 mins (I wish!)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

ANOK, are you forgetting that it was not just one floor hitting the floor below, but a whole bunch of floors? Also, in your beating N3rdL to death, have you forgotten what else is working in this collision of floors? I'll give you a hint. It is all around us and the entire universe, it has a constant on Earth of 9.806 m/s^2, and it starts with the letter G.

You keep ignoring or forgetting gravity and that this is a falling body collision, NOT a horizontal plane collision. In a horizontal collision, the effects of gravity are not noted in the equation. Like two billiard balls impacting, all they are dealing with is just the mass and velocity (please note that I am not ignoring gravity all together since it is ALL around us constantly, but I am pointing out that there is a difference between horizontal and vertical collisions.) One falling floor impactsthe floor below it. Yes there is an equal and opposite FORCE reaction, however, what happens to those supports holding up the said floor when it is now dealing with an impact of a dynamic force? They fail. So now, gravity is still accelerating the falling mass which now is TWO floors together, impacting the floor below it. That floor is dealing with an accelerating mass that is now TWICE what the first floor dealt with, causing it to no fail and fall with the mass of three floors. And so on and so on. Your oversimplistic view of N3rdL is causing you to fail in understanding the complexity of this scenario which you are leaving out, like simple gravity.

There is a constant acceleration on the mass. You are using an equation that has NO constant acceleration. That is your ultimate undoing. The best way to show this is to set up a track on a 35 degree incline. Take billiard balls and set them up along the track equal distances from each other, and have them all held in place with small tabs. Go to the top of the track and release one ball and let it hit the first ball and watch the tab break, releasing both balls. Then watch happens to the next ball and next ball. This is the situation ANOK which you are failing to understand. There is a CONSTANT acceleration of the falling mass. The mass was not pushed horizontally into another mass.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Since your data is listed from 0 to 110 you actually have 111 levels. Urich does mention the roof in his "essay".

What is #110 which is the 111th if the building had 110 floors and yet you say 412 meters is where the bottom of floor 110 should be? I mean if 0 is the 1st floor, and 1 is the 2nd floor, and 2 is the 3rd floor, etc., then 110 is what? If it is the roof then it should not be at 412 meters.

I thought I already went through this. I set the mass up for minimum PE. You're welcome to use the masses placed higher up if you'd like, I just wanted to minimise any criticisms. If I got the levels wrong please feel free to correct them.


No we did not go through this. This is the first time I have said anything about your having

ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN data points.

Previously I looked at your #110 and assumed that was the 110th level. I had not noticed that you started counting from ZERO. So no we have not gone through this.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So please post the corrected figures. It looks like the LINX issues are out of my hands now so if ANOK wants a more detailed explanation I can give it. Let me know please ANOK.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Certainly. Using the model me + psikey are using means there are suspended floating masses representing the floors. We drop one group on another from say the 90th floor. When the two meet, they will destroy each other and the supports holding the floor up. This turns them into rubble (essentially using up Kinetic Energy) and expels some of the debris.

At this point we have a lower block 'A' made of 88 intact floors. We have a rubble block 'B' made of 2 'rubbleised' floors. We have an intact upper block 'C'. From this point, the behaviour depends on how much KE was lost in the initial collision. Either the upper block will hit the rubble block first, or the lower block will hit the rubble block.


NO, NO, NO!

You are putting words in my mouth there. I am not saying anything about things destroying each other. These masses are held up by "magic" and are simply combining. Any DESTRUCTION would require energy and that energy would have to come from somewhere.

The point of this magical collapse is that it comes down in the minimum possible time with NO KINETIC ENERGY LOST doing any DESTRUCTION. So since the real building had to incur destruction to the supports it would have to take significantly longer to come down. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST says it comes down in less time than my magical simulation. The point of my Conservation of Momentum simulation is to show why a real collapse could not possibly happen in that time.

My physical model has actual destruction of paper loops. That takes so much energy the falling mass arrests.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

About 300 year old Newtonian physics that he can build models for?


Well, Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed and is confined to a wheelchair so he isn't going to be building much of anything..


Has Stephen Hawking ever said anything about collapsing skyscrapers?

psik


No, since his speciality is astrophysics, not structural engineering, but that's neither here nor there. The point isn't about Stephen Hawking's position on the towers. The point is that you're introducing junk physics out of your zero actual training and background in physics. I explained Newton's second law of motion in one post when you couldn't do it throughout the months and months of posting and building models that illustrate absolutely nothing.

Want to see it again? Imagine a insect that flies into the windshield of a moving vehicle, and the insect splatters against it. Congratulations- you just learned Newton's third law of motion; every action has an equal but opposite reaction. When the insect hit the windshield the windshield exerted the same amount of force against the insect, and the insect splattered. The vehicle on the other hand did NOT experience an equal but opposite reaction from hitting the insect (since the vehicle didn't come to a complete stop when it hit the insect) because the force of the moving vehicle was greater than the resistance of the insect. The equal but opposite reaction to stop the moving vehicle occurs when the driver uses the brakes.

THEREFORE, the equal but opposite reaction of the collapsing upper section of the building doesn't occur when it crushed each individual floor because every video of the collapse in existence shows the force of the collapsing upper section was greater than the resistance of each individual floor. The equal but opposite reaction occurs when it hit the ground. SO, either there's some weird situation where every single video of the collapse is fake and the building should have continued falling down through the ground all the way to the Earth's core...OR, you're attempting to introduce junk physics due to your zero actual training and background in physics. Guess which one I think it is?

You will notice I didn't need to build any model or post any Youtube films to get my point across here, either.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


My physical model has actual destruction of paper loops. That takes so much energy the falling mass arrests.

psik


But that is not how the WTC Towers were during their collapse. Your supports of paper loops only added to the mass which helped slow and arrest the collapse. The WTC did not have that ability. Your experiment is indicative of how a collapse can be arrested, but that does not mean it is the same for every building out there, WTC included. Had the WTC not been designed with the floors hanging off the columns, and wen with a traditional box skeleton, then yes, your experiment would have a more accurate representation.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point of this magical collapse is that it comes down in the minimum possible time with NO KINETIC ENERGY LOST doing any DESTRUCTION. So since the real building had to incur destruction to the supports it would have to take significantly longer to come down. But Dr. Sunder of the NIST says it comes down in less time than my magical simulation. The point of my Conservation of Momentum simulation is to show why a real collapse could not possibly happen in that time.

I've already explained why this is entirely false, but you also get 'NO KINETIC ENERGY' wrong. We're talking about inelastic collisions here, and so there is an inherent energy loss. The only other solution is that masses bounce.

It looks like I might have included a basement level in my figures and had a few shorter floors, although the sources of information seem rather confused. Some indicate floor #40 was 14ft high, some indicate 12ft. I'll see if I can find any authoritative source in the NIST report but I'll make sure that I clean up the floors before I run the program again.

edit: According to www.sharpprintinginc.com... these are the floors I have incorrect (other than basement floor)

#40: 14' not 12'
#43: 14' not 12'
#67: 16' not 12'
#76: 14' not 12'
#77: 12' not 14'
#78: 14' not 12'
#106: 14'4" not 14'6"
#109: 11'8" not 10'
#110: 15'4" not 16'

Please let me know what you think of these changes. Finding a source with definite details is quite tricky, but it won't change the results much.
edit on 31/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

About 300 year old Newtonian physics that he can build models for?


Well, Stephen Hawking is almost completely paralyzed and is confined to a wheelchair so he isn't going to be building much of anything..


Has Stephen Hawking ever said anything about collapsing skyscrapers?

psik


No, since his speciality is astrophysics, not structural engineering, but that's neither here nor there. The point isn't about Stephen Hawking's position on the towers. The point is that you're introducing junk physics out of your zero actual training and background in physics. I explained Newton's second law of motion in one post when you couldn't do it throughout the months and months of posting and building models that illustrate absolutely nothing.


The point is you want to throw around a NAME with AUTHORITY when you can't explain squat.

psik



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



So you try and display intelligence with equations, but lack common sense to acknowledge and explosion when you hear one?!

Copy and paste, it's a wonderful thing eh!



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
So you try and display intelligence with equations, but lack common sense to acknowledge and explosion when you hear one?!

Copy and paste, it's a wonderful thing eh!

I can hear explosions. I don't assume explosions = explosives, because then you make silly mistakes like assuming every firefighter talked about explosives, even when they were actually talking about bodies hitting the ground.

Wilful ignorance is a bad way to investigate something.
edit on 31/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join