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: 43
20
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..


If the first floor can't hold the weight, then it will fall WITH the initial weight when it fails. Seriously, logic is not the forte of many on this site.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..


If the first floor can't hold the weight, then it will fall WITH the initial weight when it fails. Seriously, logic is not the forte of many on this site.


so the first floor fell with the initial weight.. Okay but what about the other 69?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..


If the first floor can't hold the weight, then it will fall WITH the initial weight when it fails. Seriously, logic is not the forte of many on this site.


so the first floor fell with the initial weight.. Okay but what about the other 69?


1 hits 2. 2 falls with 1. 1+2 hits 3. 3 falls with 1 and 2. Continue until the floors run out.

It's like talking to a child.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


1 hits 2. 2 falls with 1. 1+2 hits 3. 3 falls with 1 and 2. Continue until the floors run out.

It's like talking to a child.


I dont know how many times this has been explained, but it is like talking to a brick wall. I thought people that claim to be intelligent, show some semblance of intelligence, and are asking how something works, would understand such a simple concept. Its like watching a fuse blow after going over 1+1 = 2 and then going on to 1+ 2 = 3.

Also in this case, its not just one floor, but 15+ floors falling as one, onto one floor. Then its 16+ floors on one. Then 17+ on one, etc etc etc. Such simple concepts and its like a foreign language. Do we need to break out sock puppets to make this simpler?
edit on 6/23/2012 by GenRadek because: spell



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
you guys keep explaining it...but is it what was observed...so you say 1 floor(basically) the top section...We will use the term upper block C falls hits the lower floor then the mass continue down to the next and the next and the next.....but is this really what was observed....Nope...

I hate doing this over and over and over...but what your trying to beat into peoples heads...is not what was observed...ALSO what your describing is pancaking....So therefore you can dismiss any of the NIST findings because they have said pancaking did not occur.


one floor

two floors



3 floors

4 floors

five floors

6 floors




as can be seen if it was as you all are stating then the lower block would be propagating down by the same number of floors 1+2+3+4+5

but you can see the upper block is crushing up....it has not been affecting the lower block for approx 8 floor already....but we can ignore this...It does not fit with your synopsis of what has occurred

there are 3 more floors on the bottom of the white lines on the box...as per the red line to the right....but has the progression penetrated into the lower block the same ...not it hasn't....does this mean the building did not suffer global collapse anyways...no it doesn't...but what it does mean it has not suffered global collapse by pancaking....and remember this is 10 frames of a video at 29fps so this is in less than half a second....pancaking requires time as failures occur within the system.

but i guess you will keep to your stands even though it can be shown to be wrong...so why not come up for a reason as to why the collapse was occurring as by what is observed...rather than making things up....I am not adding anything...i am just observing.



and you have all seen this before....and you know it is my own work....rather than just believing....do the analysis yourself....this is not pancaking going on at the collapse initiation.
edit on 033030p://f20Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033030p://f25Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 033030p://f26Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
To show i am doing some modeling based on info we have...i have projected from plans of the towers of the 80th floor....it is in the beginning phases and i will be making it as true as can be done from the plans but here is a start of it for people to see I am doing this for Exponent as we are having some actually reasonable discussion rather than bickering as it might open up our minds....Either one way or the other...when i am further I will run it by Exponent so we can agree upon some conventions to follow.









And also thanks to mythbusters shooting a steel beam at 500mph into this car we actually can use data from this to come up with a reasonable representation of how it may have affected an aircraft engine...hitting the exterior columns....knowing the car is approx 1 ton less and the dimensions not much smaller...Correct me if i am wrong but i believe the engine is approx the size of a mini van...but we will get the sizes later.

the plans and the plane and the columns are to scale ....but as i get further along people will be free to argue that....but like i say i will be seeing if a consensus on the conventions can be agreed before final drafting...which in itself could be a challenge.



we can see how the steel passed through the car but the steel did survive even after going through the engine block.....keeping in mind the steel in this case did not have stabilizing structure around it like the towers did...all things that will have to keep in mind as this progresses....input from both sides would be valuble....but pointless arguing will be ignored.

NOTE: this is a work in progress...i work many hours and don't have loads of time to spend on this.....But I am trying to go as fast as i can between life obligations....Also immigration nightmares...so anyone does not understand this...then all comments from them will also be ignored....this is personal work in progress by myself alone....I am a truther who does put in his own efforts and does not just take things that others say as fact....because the facts actually do speak for themselves and experimentation through observation is what gets true results.....Just blindly believing what the OS has spewed or what many truthers spew has to be looked into for ones own personal truth to be accepted.....that was my rant....Please Let Us Be Enlightened.

edit on 033030p://f58Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f01Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f08Saturday by plube because: NOTE:

edit on 043030p://f11Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f14Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Varemia


1 hits 2. 2 falls with 1. 1+2 hits 3. 3 falls with 1 and 2. Continue until the floors run out.

It's like talking to a child.


I dont know how many times this has been explained, but it is like talking to a brick wall. I thought people that claim to be intelligent, show some semblance of intelligence, and are asking how something works, would understand such a simple concept. Its like watching a fuse blow after going over 1+1 = 2 and then going on to 1+ 2 = 3.

Also in this case, its not just one floor, but 15+ floors falling as one, onto one floor. Then its 16+ floors on one. Then 17+ on one, etc etc etc. Such simple concepts and its like a foreign language. Do we need to break out sock puppets to make this simpler?


It is a matter of some people BELIEVING simple minded explanations that help them rationalize their BELIEFS.

They don't talk about how many connections there were around the inner and outer edges of the FLOORS.

There were about 200. How could fire make them all give way at the same time. Because if they didn't then the FLOOR would tilt and not all fall at once. But that does not explain what happened to the core.

A few posts ago someone asked me about what came down on the core. But if the core came down doesn't that mean the FLOORS did not have to detach from the core. That is why I distinguish between FLOORS and LEVELS. You people jump back and forth in what you are talking about so you can win the argument either way. But that is not physics. Physics is not about BELIEVING. It is about understanding what could and could not happen.

So either the FLOORS outside the core came loose from the core or the didn't. If they came loose then what happened to the core. And why wasn't there a stack of floors in the debris?

psik



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..


If the first floor can't hold the weight, then it will fall WITH the initial weight when it fails. Seriously, logic is not the forte of many on this site.


so the first floor fell with the initial weight.. Okay but what about the other 69?


1 hits 2. 2 falls with 1. 1+2 hits 3. 3 falls with 1 and 2. Continue until the floors run out.

It's like talking to a child.



You can make up anything you want but it doesn't make it true. That was not what we can all see happening to the buildings. A child can tell that the buildings were exploding and not 1 hits 2. 2 falls with 1. 1+2 hits 3. 3 falls with 1 and 2.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try


Reading your comments such as this one makes me want to vomit a little bit. How about dropping 10kg weight 12ft and having 70 people stacked vertically (like the 70 floors of undamaged building were) try to catch that weight?

I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident that the weight would be caught way above the ground..


If the first floor can't hold the weight, then it will fall WITH the initial weight when it fails. Seriously, logic is not the forte of many on this site.


so the first floor fell with the initial weight.. Okay but what about the other 69?


This is for
Anok,psikeyhackr,Plube BUT especially you maxella1
Here is a link.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Lets look at a 10 kg weight falling 12 ft 3.66 mtrs a WTC floor height.
Put the figs into the top part of the calculator in the link above.
Mass 10kg height 3.66 mtrs energy at impact 358.68 jules.

Now the part we have to work out how much resisitance did it meet.
As some angle cleats sheared and were about 1" thick 25.4mm or 0.025 we can use that figure in the bottom half.
so d = 0.0254mtrs
The average impact force would be 14121 N yes divide by 9.81 for kg
EQUALS = 1439KG OR 1.439 tons if slowed down over that distance.

Lets say it took 4" or 100mm or 0.1 of a meter 3586n or 358kg still over a third of a ton.
Also this is the force generated to STOP the mass falling if it DIDN'T STOP the force was GREATER!!!!!!!

If you straightend your arms above you and that 10kg mass fell your arms would snap like twigs!!!!!

Why dont you guys put in JUST the approx mass of concrete in a floor slab 600 t or 600,000 kg and see the kind of result that would generate


Now multiply that by 15 floors for the North tower and 30 for the South.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All that anybody needs to do is watch what happened to the buildings. They were exploding not collapsing..

plub makes it very easy for you to see that in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you plub !

The top 15 floors are exploding before they even fall onto the level below it.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
The top 15 floors are exploding before they even fall onto the level below it.

No they aren't. Who would set up such a crazy system where they detonate all of the bits above the part they want to collapse? That's just ridiculous.

What actually happens is that the floors don't retain structural integrity after impact, so as they collapse they're turned into rubble. The outer walls of the tower survive longer and as a result it becomes what some have termed ROOSD.

What possible reason would anyone have to do it any other way?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Hiya Exponent...how you doing...I am working on things...but it is taking some time....If you will notice i did not imply what is taking place there....don't like getting dragged into that debate...but i did imply in the first instance what was not happening....From observation...it is not clearly just pancaking going on in the structure.
I will not imply what i think is going on...it is just observation for now....I am making headway on some modeling...but it will be some time coming.....because as i am hunting around for plans..and photos of the buildings I come across arguments...of course as to if the plans are even real or not...lol.
What a wicked web has been weaved....Not going to get into a discussion with you right now about what you state there...will let it ride for now...you said at one point you knew where some plans were...i wonder if they are the same ones i am working off....could you point me in the correct direction....just so i can make sure they are similar...or they might hold more valid info....i am noticing the diagonal bracing on the plans for the core...and it does seems correct as to the photos i have been looking at...Manby have said the diagonal bracing was removed...well in some cases of where the crane supports were yes some was...but the diagonal bracing on the plans were and are permanent....it seems to be on the four corner sections of the core columns...and along two access halls down the middle....so any info you can point me to concerning this would be helpful.

Note: i have the full set of subfloors and core from here...PLANS

also the plans show all these diagonals as part of the core structure...I am good at reading plans as i do draw them up....so if you can accept these plans then we are progressing.



According to the plans the bracing is shown every second floor which fits with he photos i have found
edit on 123030p://f10Saturday by plube because: NOTE:



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by maxella1
The top 15 floors are exploding before they even fall onto the level below it.

No they aren't. Who would set up such a crazy system where they detonate all of the bits above the part they want to collapse? That's just ridiculous.

What actually happens is that the floors don't retain structural integrity after impact, so as they collapse they're turned into rubble. The outer walls of the tower survive longer and as a result it becomes what some have termed ROOSD.

What possible reason would anyone have to do it any other way?


I already told you that in order for me to believe what you're saying I would need to see it happen to other buildings. I have seen buildings collapsing and what is left after the collapse in real life with my own eyes. and every single one of them collapse in stages, the damaged portion falls first and then piece by piece it fall apart, and a good portion of it remain standing. These buildings collapsing were not the size of the WTC that is true.

In the line of work I do, i see all kinds of emergencies every day in fact recently some one told me that a guy was killed by accident during a fight without any weapons, but i see bullet entry and exit wounds in the guys leg right in the area where femoral artery is. Based on my experience and assessment of the crime scene I will not believe that this story is true even if the weapon will never be found. It still is a gun shot wound and most likely the guy bled out and died as the result of that gun shot.

So you can tell me that the sky is green and grass is blue all you want but I can look at the sky and see that it's not blue.

I look at WTC and I see that what you're saying is not true. Agree to disagree until I see something semular happen and if it does i will agree with you that you might be right and I might be wrong.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All that anybody needs to do is watch what happened to the buildings. They were exploding not collapsing..

plub makes it very easy for you to see that in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you plub !

The top 15 floors are exploding before they even fall onto the level below it.


Well max you stick to the medical problems, 30+ yrs in construction, left school and worked in the design and drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company, work on a technical basis on site advising on and testing structural fixings you know the kind of things that WELL hold buildings up


So between me and YOU who has a better understanding of this event I will say ME!!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


just a note...with all that experience behind you....why not use it to shut Truthers up...I mean if your so sure about your analysis...and your wealth of true construction experience...why not lend your skills behind NIST FEMA AND BAZANT....because i to have 30+ in Building design and structural components....and anything that i do is my own work...My own analysis....i do not rely on the work of the other experts...but i do use information from all aspects of the work done by others out there....OMG ..i even use NIST, FEMA and Bazants work to see if what they have been saying is true...In many aspects ....very good workmanship....but in many aspects it is lacking in absolute proof...and not only that...they conflict with each other in many cases...just as many experts from the truther side of things....So you can SCREAM to the world how your so educated in it...but show your own work and analysis to back things up....as you can see from the modeling above i am using actual plans of the Towers....trying to see if they fit with the model as i make the model more and more complex to meet the design it will change accordingly...and then i will import this into Autocad to help with all the technical aspects of the model....This once it is done i will state the conventions so that the language will stay true through out the analysis....then who knows i might have to change my whole belief system....cause i might just show that i am wrong in how i perceive the collapse to have occurred....the thing i find most interesting is when people discuss pancaking but negate the core components....and how people say the connections were the failing part...but when going over the plans....connections were approx once every three floors for the core columns...they are 30' long....so there can we just conclude in the towers that these connections for the core failed....not so sure.
Also in Bazants papers the columns due to heat become elastic....they begin to buckle...yet for this buckling to occur it is limited to buckling between floors...so approx 12' sections of the 30' columns....So It does not make perfect sense...Also as i am trying to ascertain is on the plans it shows the diagonal bracing....In photos it shows the diagonal bracing....but for some strange reason people are saying the bracing was temporary...yes some of it was...but the plans are very definite about the bracing that was permanent which would act to restrict this apparent buckling....Also as in photos and on the plans....this bracing goes up on every second floor so why is that not shown in Bazants papers....
Now just because i am educated in aspects of this...it does not mean i can give a definitive answer....but i do find it strange...that you can....when i showed the video analysis above....please can you explain the process of collapse surrounding the core components of the upper block....that would be of some assistance in the modeling i am doing and i will gladly try to implement it into the modeling....because from what i observe i do not see the upper block shifting to the side....which may account for the upper block having a free space in which to fall onto the lower block....also i have done an video analysis of the spire...which truly does appear to drop aprox 10 before the roof line does begin to move....so being that the spire is an integral part of the hat truss components....should the hat truss not be progressing downward also....

These are not questions to catch you out...to me they are valid questions that help to actually figure out the collapse process....now looking at the plans...the hat truss has diagonal bracing going down as far as the 107th floor....so the hat truss itself covers three floors from the top down...it is a strange behavior no matter how many years of experience either of us have in building design and structural engineering....would you not agree.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
also the plans show all these diagonals as part of the core structure...I am good at reading plans as i do draw them up....so if you can accept these plans then we are progressing.



According to the plans the bracing is shown every second floor which fits with he photos i have found
edit on 123030p://f10Saturday by plube because: NOTE:

As far as I know the bracing here surrounded the core on the lowest floors, but not on the regular office floors. However I'm not 100% confident on this.

Can you post your model somewhere? Any standardised format is fine with me, COLLADA is pretty common but I don't mind.


Originally posted by maxella1
I already told you that in order for me to believe what you're saying I would need to see it happen to other buildings. I have seen buildings collapsing and what is left after the collapse in real life with my own eyes. and every single one of them collapse in stages, the damaged portion falls first and then piece by piece it fall apart, and a good portion of it remain standing. These buildings collapsing were not the size of the WTC that is true.

Well no offence intended but personal incredulity doesn't really mean anything. You can't possibly believe that your position is balanced when you require a building the size of the WTC towers to collapse in order to prove a relatively simple concept. It's not rocket science!


So you can tell me that the sky is green and grass is blue all you want but I can look at the sky and see that it's not blue.

I look at WTC and I see that what you're saying is not true. Agree to disagree until I see something semular happen and if it does i will agree with you that you might be right and I might be wrong.

This is not what I am saying though. It's more like I am saying 'the sky is blue because of rayleigh scattering' and you are saying 'I have never seen rayleigh scattering before so I cant believe you'.

I'm not claiming anything which is obviously contrary to reality, just that the mechanism is slightly complex and so if you rely purely on your own experiences and interpretation you'll miss out on reality.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


All that anybody needs to do is watch what happened to the buildings. They were exploding not collapsing..

plub makes it very easy for you to see that in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you plub !

The top 15 floors are exploding before they even fall onto the level below it.


Well max you stick to the medical problems, 30+ yrs in construction, left school and worked in the design and drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company, work on a technical basis on site advising on and testing structural fixings you know the kind of things that WELL hold buildings up


So between me and YOU who has a better understanding of this event I will say ME!!!!!


That's the whole thing you don't need to be an expert to see that buildings are exploding.

It's not medical problems I'm sticking to its reality.

What you are trying so hard to prove is unprovable. Because just like the bullet wound in my example will remain to be a bullet wound even if anybody with any kind of expertise will determine that the actual cause of death was a heart attack.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube



Now that is a great picture.

You can see the corner of the building in the background and the flimsy web of steel that connected one perimeter array to another at a 90 degree angle. We are supposed to believe that that gave stiffness to the building rather than the three dimensional array of steel in the core.



psik



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


No max its physics DYNAMIC loads are way above static loads that what people on here go out of their way to ignore because they know its true!

Nothing is exploding objects are impacting thats not the same!



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can see the corner of the building in the background and the flimsy web of steel that connected one perimeter array to another at a 90 degree angle. We are supposed to believe that that gave stiffness to the building rather than the three dimensional array of steel in the core.

The moment bracing effect of the spandrels + columns is not reliant on the corner elements. Why would you think it was? The very frame structure with the long spandrel interconnections makes a moment frame, the building could literally have no corner moment strength whatsoever and still resist overturning.

I don't think you know what you're talking about psikey.




top topics



 
20
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join