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: 38
20
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How are you supposed to prevent it if you don't know how it happened?

How are you supposed to figure out how it happened if you don't ask a question as simple as, "Where was the center of mass?".

It's cause and effect psikey. You don't learn how to prevent the cause by studying the effect. You learn how to prevent the effect by studying the cause. It comes as no great shock that you are unable to see this.


But then the experts must defend the stupidity. And of course they are EXPERTS.

They are psikey. You are not.

Have you come to terms with his yet? Have you realised the reality of your situation? I doubt that. I told you I wasn't going to go around in circles, and your delusions continue unchecked.




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How are you supposed to prevent it if you don't know how it happened?

How are you supposed to figure out how it happened if you don't ask a question as simple as, "Where was the center of mass?".

It's cause and effect psikey. You don't learn how to prevent the cause by studying the effect. You learn how to prevent the effect by studying the cause. It comes as no great shock that you are unable to see this.


But then the experts must defend the stupidity. And of course they are EXPERTS.

They are psikey. You are not.

Have you come to terms with his yet? Have you realised the reality of your situation? I doubt that. I told you I wasn't going to go around in circles, and your delusions continue unchecked.


Care to provide a link to someone explaining the cause of the top of the south tower tilting so fast?

I have never seen one.

psik



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.


The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.

A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.

psik


I'm not a priest or an exorcist. I'm not trying to make you change your beliefs about physics. I'm just trying to point out that your 1 dimensional analysis will not help you understand the 3D world we live in. A change in the vertical will have an impact on the horizontal.

The belief that 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining building illustrates a lack of understanding of physics. In a Sumo match does the bigger sumo always win? In a (American) football game does the bigger player always stop the smaller? In all these cases the winner is the on that can apply more "force" to the other. This applies to the building as well. Can the top portion supply enough force to overwhelm the bottom portion. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC7 the answer is yes.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.


The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.

A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.

psik


I'm not a priest or an exorcist. I'm not trying to make you change your beliefs about physics. I'm just trying to point out that your 1 dimensional analysis will not help you understand the 3D world we live in. A change in the vertical will have an impact on the horizontal.

The belief that 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining building illustrates a lack of understanding of physics. In a Sumo match does the bigger sumo always win? In a (American) football game does the bigger player always stop the smaller? In all these cases the winner is the on that can apply more "force" to the other. This applies to the building as well. Can the top portion supply enough force to overwhelm the bottom portion. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC7 the answer is yes.


Oh wow, another brilliant comparison of the animate to the inanimate while complaining that someone does not understand physics.

I am so impressed.


When and where did this sumo match take place where one wrestler was only 15% of the weight of his opponent?

Physics is not about BELIEF. But in order to KNOW we need accurate data. So where was the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower? How is it our brilliant physicists can spend ten yeas not asking about that? Oh yeah, that's physics. Physicists aren't interested in that.

psik
edit on 9-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
The belief that 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining building illustrates a lack of understanding of physics. In a Sumo match does the bigger sumo always win? In a (American) football game does the bigger player always stop the smaller? In all these cases the winner is the on that can apply more "force" to the other. This applies to the building as well. Can the top portion supply enough force to overwhelm the bottom portion. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC7 the answer is yes.


C'mon mate that is complete nonsense.

The physical strength of a person is not known based on weight. Your lighter Sumo could be stronger than the other guy, or just a better fighter. You can't try to figure out physics of colliding objects by comparing to living flesh and muscle. It simply doesn't compare.

But when it comes to steel we know it's strength, it is predictable how it would react in a given situation, because it reacts the same way every time.

The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion. It doesn't matter how much force the 15 floors had, which wasn't much from dropping a few feet, the 95 floors still had more force pushing back against the falling mass. People want to assume the only force was in the falling mass, and ignore the force pushing back equally from the static mass. If the top floors are crushing the floors they fall on, then the floors being impacted are also being crushed, thus losing mass.

If you think it can then build a model that demonstrates it.

But regardless of all that you only have to look at videos of the collapses to see the top was not crushing the bottom floors, you can see the top section collapsing from the bottom up...




edit on 6/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion.


We understand the laws of motion. We also understand that the lower part of the building could only push back with the strength of 1floor against the falling mass of 15+ floors.

We also understand gravitational potential energy.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK


The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion.


We understand the laws of motion. We also understand that the lower part of the building could only push back with the strength of 1floor against the falling mass of 15+ floors.

We also understand gravitational potential energy.


Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?

psik
edit on 9-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: gram err



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

We understand the laws of motion. We also understand that the lower part of the building could only push back with the strength of 1floor against the falling mass of 15+ floors.


You can't pretend it is 15 floors falling on one, the videos of the event prove that didn't happen. Watch the collapse vids and you can see the 15 floors are collapsing from the bottom up before the bottom 95 floors even start to collapse.

Regardless the force of 14 of the falling floors would be pushing on 15th floor of that block, as well as the one impacted floor of the lower 95. That is what you keep failing to understand. Both impacting floors would feel the force of the falling mass, as well as the static mass pushing up. Remember the top was not a solid block any more than the bottom was.

You have to consider it either one floor falling on one floor, or 15 floors falling on 95. You are simply twisting reality to conveniently ignore the mass and resistance of the lower floors.


We also understand gravitational potential energy.


But you don't demonstrate that you understand why resistance is a stronger force than gravity.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?



The failure points that lead to the progressive collapse had to support the weight of only ONE LEVEL for 28 year. When the time came that it had to support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS it failed.


edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
as well as the static mass pushing up.


As well as the dynamic mass pushing down. You left that out.

Would this be one of your examples of gravitational potential energy pushing up ?
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
A question for Truthers.


How many levels was this truss seat designed to hold ?








posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
A question for Truthers.


How many levels was this truss seat designed to hold ?







Question for idiots:

How many truss seats were there around the internal and external edges of each floor? So you can show pictures of individual truss seats. That is so impressive. Just a single concrete floor slab was SIX HUNDRED TONS. Are you trying to say that was held by a single truss seat?

So how much energy was required to break all of those truss seats? So how did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds? How do you do this BELIEVABLE PHYSICS without DATA?


psik



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Question for idiots:

How many truss seats were there around the internal and external edges of each floor? So you can show pictures of individual truss seats. That is so impressive. Just a single concrete floor slab was SIX HUNDRED TONS. Are you trying to say that was held by a single truss seat?

So how much energy was required to break all of those truss seats? So how did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds? How do you do this BELIEVABLE PHYSICS without DATA?


psik


So are you saying you don't want to answer the question ?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?


The failure points that lead to the progressive collapse had to support the weight of only ONE LEVEL for 28 year. When the time came that it had to support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS it failed.



What you are claiming to be failure points are only on the external perimeter. They are all around the core also. Now how could they all fail for a single floor simultaneously. Because if they did not fail simultaneously then the floor would tilt. Wouldn't that squeeze the core? Wouldn't that create LOTS OF FRICTION? Wouldn't that slow the collapse down? So how did the building come down in less than 26 seconds?

psik



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


Wouldn't that create LOTS OF FRICTION? Wouldn't that slow the collapse down?


Yes, it slowed the collapse down by about 33%.
edit on 9-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Question for idiots:

How many truss seats were there around the internal and external edges of each floor? So you can show pictures of individual truss seats. That is so impressive. Just a single concrete floor slab was SIX HUNDRED TONS. Are you trying to say that was held by a single truss seat?

So how much energy was required to break all of those truss seats? So how did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds? How do you do this BELIEVABLE PHYSICS without DATA?


psik


So are you saying you don't want to answer the question ?


That single truss seat was designed to hold ZERO LEVELS.

So you can't tell the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

psik



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

That single truss seat was designed to hold ZERO LEVELS.

So you can't tell the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

psik


Excellent answer, I agree. You have been saving it held 15 levels for 28 years and just suddenly collapsed.

Glad to see the correction, let's move on.

How many floors was it designed to hold up ?



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion. It doesn't matter how much force the 15 floors had, which wasn't much from dropping a few feet, the 95 floors still had more force pushing back against the falling mass.

'dropping a few feet'. Yes of course, dropping tens of thousands of tons of material 'a few feet' surely will do nothing.

I don't know why you bother ANOK. You couldn't answer my question about tension and so you evaded it. You couldn't appreciate that scientific papers disagree with you so you ignored them.

You seem to only come into a topic when you think you have something sarcastic and funny to say. Where's the serious response to the truss paper I linked you to?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

That single truss seat was designed to hold ZERO LEVELS.

So you can't tell the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?

psik


Excellent answer, I agree. You have been saving it held 15 levels for 28 years and just suddenly collapsed.

Glad to see the correction, let's move on.

How many floors was it designed to hold up ?


I haven't said anything of the kind. The core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter columns 47% and all of those truss brackets were merely the means by which the floor assemblies were attached to the columns. The people claiming the buildings could collapse are simply using those truss brackets as their excuse while ignoring the core as much as possible. Of course the horizontal beams in the core tend to disappear completely.

But the core was part of every LEVEL.

That


Excellent answer, I agree.


is just part of your stupid debating, ego game crap, it is simply a fact of the physics to me.

psik
edit on 9-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
'dropping a few feet'. Yes of course, dropping tens of thousands of tons of material 'a few feet' surely will do nothing.

I don't know why you bother ANOK. You couldn't answer my question about tension and so you evaded it. You couldn't appreciate that scientific papers disagree with you so you ignored them.


As usual you pick on only part of what I say.

But it's dropping tens of thousands of tons of material, on, tens of thousands of tons of material. You just don't get it.

Again you want to ignore the mass of the 95 floors. Why do you bother?

What question about tension? What has tension got to do with mass falling on mass? How does tension change the laws of motion? What has tension got to do with sagging trusses pulling in columns?

You just find a new term to throw around whenever your argument starts falling apart. You think it makes you sound like you know what you're talking about. How about using some old terms like 'equal and opposite reaction', which is never mentioned in your claims unless you are forced to.

How do sagging trusses pull in columns?



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join