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.

 

The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned


That's a good point you've made (I've seen in other posts of yours & the removing resistance angle), that the buildings were hit differently in different locations but fell exactly the same.

What's the simplest explanation to account for this?



They DIDN'T fall exactly the same North Tower was hit first high up the South Tower although hit second collapsed first due to greater load above impact point
who would have thought that.

Also North Tower was hit mid elevation and collpase was almost exactly vertical, the South Tower was hit off centre and the collapse leaned towards that area of impact then collapse happened.

Here is a link below to a load calculator put some figures in for even just one floor slab use 600 tons (600,000kg) just for the concrete, drop height is 3.66 mtrs a WTC floor height if the bolts failed thay were approx 16mm dia if the angle cleats failed they were about 1" or 25mm put those in as the stopping distance although we know the load didn't stop.


So mass 600,000 kg height 3.66 mtrs stopping distance 0.016 mtrs or 0.025 mtrs your answer will be in Newtons some digits will be hidden you will have to delete digits to see full answer or use 600kg for mass and multiply the answer by 1000.

Then once you have the answer divide by 9.81 for kg and remember that's one slab not 15(NT) or 30(ST) and none of the steelwork mass that fell either.

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

Now psik will answer we dont know this and we dont know that IF you look at the answer you DON'T need to!!!




posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


like the vid and there are some good shots in it...i will break them down....



I do however just try to stick with what is known...I can make all the assumptions i want about how it was done...but what we have is three steel structures came down in one day with varying degrees of damage and the results were the same...Complete global collapse...no matter how some people try to argue semantics.

there are slight differences in collapses but results were all the same....without fail.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


lovely nice...beautiful...great...fantastic....yet not once have you mentioned core compression....core segments are 30ft in length...they span three floors....they are cross braced..(according to plans)...less cross bracing after 76floor...until 106th floor when the hat truss bracing comes into play.

I forgot...the core is a figment of everyones imaginations.....you will love the next vid i am working on...cheers.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


What about the core? Sure, some of it compressed in the areas were the collapse started from, but the rest? The floors dropped around them leaving them standing alone, and eventually, they too tipped over and collapsed. Hell you can see that happen in the close shots of the North Tower collapse. They just stand there and some tilt over and fall like a tree. Why should there be core column compression when they would just tip over?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


lovely nice...beautiful...great...fantastic....yet not once have you mentioned core compression....core segments are 30ft in length...they span three floors....they are cross braced..(according to plans)...less cross bracing after 76floor...until 106th floor when the hat truss bracing comes into play.

I forgot...the core is a figment of everyones imaginations.....you will love the next vid i am working on...cheers.



The floors fall around the core other items are bound to impact the core remember the spire? I suggest you look up slim column bucking and also put some figs in calculator I linked to maybe you will do that I know psik is to frightened to do that are you?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
rather than discuss the core i will just show shall i...

HATRUSS ...used to transfer load from core columns to Perimeter columns.



braced and cross braced down to 106th floor



completely integrated(as on would expect)



but of course i will assume it is just some flimsy bit of steel which...that would just separate form the existing elements.

lets look first though....hate assumptions.



yup i was correct..some usless piece of kit...that would easily separate and WHAT?.



considering it sits ontop of this...taking into account the cores columns do become smaller as they approach the top....they first shrink on the 40th floor ...then again on the 76th floor...but they still continue right from the 106th all the way down to sub level 6.....above 106th they integrate into the hat truss.

so onto the observed....

DO THIS?








as we see the spire as you guys already know...drops before the roof line even begins to drop...yet as previously shown...all things being integrated...this is perfectly normal....I mean since the core is just being sent out to the sides....yet this is right at the collapse onset...I could show the previous photos again.... and then you could explain the disintegration of this section....but heck....you can't really.



that is approximately 10ft of drop before the roof line starts to drop.

WMD. we will discuss the truss seats....soon...because i have found so many shots of them now...and i will go over exactly how they did not fail....but it means they may not have been so feeble at their job like you like to maintain....it is amazing how many survived...and how many still had have their bolts attached.

NOW GEN:

the reason i say compressed core...is in order for Bazants model to work they HAD to become elastic....buckle and compress and as WMD keeps going about the MASS...that is why it is stated that the straight down Collapse could only be viable.

Now because there was some core standing...however briefly ...it means not one of the official progression of collapse THEORIES can therefore be valid...you guys cannot have it both ways...IT is just as contradictory as the conflicting NIST and FEMA reports.....LOOKS more and MORE like these were not purely gravity driven collapses.

Also i don't have to go to a website to calculate mass i can do that quite well on my own....i have the concrete pour tables for the buildings. If you i could do you some numbers...that would be pretty darns close...excluding what was in the offices...because frankly that part would be a guess.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
that is approximately 10ft of drop before the roof line starts to drop.


Here's an interesting thing that I thought of when I saw this:

The distance between floors is approximately 10 feet, yes? That means that the core fell the distance of a single floor before the rest of the collapse began. Doesn't that prove the truss failure concept with regards to a complete collapse? Core for initiation, trusses for continuation.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube






Take and place your mouse pointer on the window washer crane on the upper right side of the building to use as a motion reference.

You will see the crane drops right along with the antenna.

Does this make a problem for your theory ?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Wow...you don't spend a lot of time on the internet do you? First off no one needs to support gravity on the internet because it has a long history in books to support it, and secondly there are websites to support the theories around gravity.

Here's one: How stuff works

Ya....and there's more websites for that then just the one I listed...try to actually like....google search a topic before you use it as an argument or you'll end up making yourself look ignorant. Really just using your brain would help.
edit on 19-7-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


SO LIKE psik you wont try an IMPACT LOAD calculation I WONDER WHY



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by plube
 


SO LIKE psik you wont try an IMPACT LOAD calculation I WONDER WHY


When did I bring up an impact load calculation?

What matters is the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL. There is only so much Potential Energy above any given LEVEL. It is not the Potential Energy computed from the ground that determines how much energy is available to collapse a LEVEL it is the Potential Energy computed from that LEVEL.

Where have we had EXPERTS computing then energy to collapse LEVELS because it is not going to be constant down the building. It is going to relate to the amount of steel on each level.

psik



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well why don't you try an impact calculation even just for one floor slab if you are so confident it would back up your cause would it not?

So what's the problem why won't you even try it , I KNOW WHY
:



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It would be a great thing....would it not, if the spire did not drop before the roof line even moved,Least you always do think about things Verm....never have minded discussing things with you.
edit on 043131p://f13Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


no worries there m* i have watch it...this is Six frames frame a 29fps video....for the first three frames i captured the spire moves with out any other movement...the gif is only the frame i presented above...the spire has no reason to move even a millimeter on its own before anything else in the entire hat truss assembly...Remember the whole basis of your collapse scenarios...ARE...the floors gave way...(remember the Truss seats)...this apparently accumulated a load beyond the capabilities of the the lower floor could support...but it looks as though the core went first and the floor collapses followed.

Tell you what ....i will put together a thread where i will include all findings i have done...then it will be easier for you to immediately disagree with my analysis.

everything i do...i do my own....i do not use others works...I like to make my own mistakes rather than rely on others to tell me what i should conclude.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


well i went to your impact sight...but you know something....For one thing...it does not work


Even though the application of conservation of energy to a falling object allows us to predict its impact velocity and kinetic energy, we cannot predict its impact force without knowing how far it travels after impact.


you see. what does that do...you assuming Bazant is correct...and that for some reason...all things failed and the upper block drops aprox 3m+ but from what i have seen this is not the case...Also according to your thoughts you assume the floors failed...as in what has been prescribed by nist...which then accumulated debris...over loaded the floor systems ...as you keep on SAYING the angular seat components were the weak point in this structure and the suspect failure point therefore generating collapse scenario.

Reading your comments...that is what i have gathered from you...is that correct?

If that is correct then calculating the mass of the upper block becomes completely erroneous....also just because you have this mass in which energy can be calculated then you have to calculated the resistive force of the lower structure...which seems to get ignored.

Analogy....drop the upper block straight down onto the earth....What is the resistive force of the earth...you will feel the earth shake...so what is happening...the Earth is transferring that energy through out it's mass....

So i will give you a challenge....work out the how much of that energy available should have been transfered through out the lower structure.

The place you sent me too explains it right at the very beginning....why would you choose to ignore this very important issue.
edit on 043131p://f16Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well why don't you try an impact calculation even just for one floor slab if you are so confident it would back up your cause would it not?

So what's the problem why won't you even try it , I KNOW WHY
:


I consider it to be obvious that my experiment demonstrating an event more complex than a single impact calculation is more relevant. And I do apply calculations to it.

It takes 0.118 joules to flatten a paper loop. This was tested and computed empirically. Where is the specification for the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL of the WTC? And that would change down the building.

The empty space below my falling mass makes it possible to compute the energy applied to the impact. Enough to flatten 8 loops. But 9 loops were damaged and half of them were not flattened completely.

All of these demands for calculations on the WTC run into the problem of not having accurate data on the WTC to do the calculations with, so it is nothing but idiotic busy work having people waste time when ten years have already been wasted. But those same people object to demands for accurate data. I don't even know the tons of steel in the trusses and pans that the 600 ton concrete slab was poured onto.

That is why scientists have made the 9/11 decade a scientific travesty. But we are supposed to get all excited about the Higgs Boson and a robot explorer landing on Mars but they won't have this Newtonian Physics resolved by 9/11/12.

psik



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well why don't you try an impact calculation even just for one floor slab if you are so confident it would back up your cause would it not?

So what's the problem why won't you even try it , I KNOW WHY
:


I consider it to be obvious that my experiment demonstrating an event more complex than a single impact calculation is more relevant. And I do apply calculations to it.

It takes 0.118 joules to flatten a paper loop. This was tested and computed empirically. Where is the specification for the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL of the WTC? And that would change down the building.

The empty space below my falling mass makes it possible to compute the energy applied to the impact. Enough to flatten 8 loops. But 9 loops were damaged and half of them were not flattened completely.

All of these demands for calculations on the WTC run into the problem of not having accurate data on the WTC to do the calculations with, so it is nothing but idiotic busy work having people waste time when ten years have already been wasted. But those same people object to demands for accurate data. I don't even know the tons of steel in the trusses and pans that the 600 ton concrete slab was poured onto.

That is why scientists have made the 9/11 decade a scientific travesty. But we are supposed to get all excited about the Higgs Boson and a robot explorer landing on Mars but they won't have this Newtonian Physics resolved by 9/11/12.

psik


So if your loops were meant to model possibly a single core column in the tower, why can't your loops move laterally? You said yourself that the initial impact caused 9 of the loops to be damaged, so wouldn't a similar event happen in the towers, except on multiple core columns moving in different directions?

You also completely neglect any type of model that would relate to the truss collapses. Since the majority of the core was STILL STANDING after the collapse, I think it's safe to say that even if your model was only built to relate to a single column, it is completely irrelevant to whether the towers can collapse or not.

And now you'll retort with your usual, "I never meant to model anything about the collapse on 9/11. That's why I keep talking about it as if it's a model of the collapse." Get real.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well why don't you try an impact calculation even just for one floor slab if you are so confident it would back up your cause would it not?

So what's the problem why won't you even try it , I KNOW WHY
:


I consider it to be obvious that my experiment demonstrating an event more complex than a single impact calculation is more relevant. And I do apply calculations to it.

It takes 0.118 joules to flatten a paper loop. This was tested and computed empirically. Where is the specification for the amount of energy required to collapse a LEVEL of the WTC? And that would change down the building.

The empty space below my falling mass makes it possible to compute the energy applied to the impact. Enough to flatten 8 loops. But 9 loops were damaged and half of them were not flattened completely.

All of these demands for calculations on the WTC run into the problem of not having accurate data on the WTC to do the calculations with, so it is nothing but idiotic busy work having people waste time when ten years have already been wasted. But those same people object to demands for accurate data. I don't even know the tons of steel in the trusses and pans that the 600 ton concrete slab was poured onto.

That is why scientists have made the 9/11 decade a scientific travesty. But we are supposed to get all excited about the Higgs Boson and a robot explorer landing on Mars but they won't have this Newtonian Physics resolved by 9/11/12.

psik


So if your loops were meant to model possibly a single core column in the tower, why can't your loops move laterally? .


I never said anything about my loops being meant to model a single core column.

I said my model demonstrates a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. I admitted many times that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. My model consists of fewer than 100 parts. The WTC had thousands of parts. Whatever happened had to be more complicated than my model. But no matter how big or complex it cannot defy Newtonian physics. A really good model would be very expensive and time consuming to construct and would require more accurate data on the buildings. So why doesn't everyone want accurate data so one of our expensive engineering school can build an accurate model?

So why don't we even know the total weight of the trusses and corrugated pans of a single floor assembly?

psik



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never said anything about my loops being meant to model a single core column.

I said my model demonstrates a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. I admitted many times that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. My model consists of fewer than 100 parts. The WTC had thousands of parts. Whatever happened had to be more complicated than my model. But no matter how big or complex it cannot defy Newtonian physics. A really good model would be very expensive and time consuming to construct and would require more accurate data on the buildings. So why doesn't everyone want accurate data so one of our expensive engineering school can build an accurate model?

So why don't we even know the total weight of the trusses and corrugated pans of a single floor assembly?

psik


One self-supporting structure is ridiculously different than another self-supporting structure. How can you not see how stupid your model is in this context?



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never said anything about my loops being meant to model a single core column.

I said my model demonstrates a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. I admitted many times that my model is not a tube-in-tube structure. My model consists of fewer than 100 parts. The WTC had thousands of parts. Whatever happened had to be more complicated than my model. But no matter how big or complex it cannot defy Newtonian physics. A really good model would be very expensive and time consuming to construct and would require more accurate data on the buildings. So why doesn't everyone want accurate data so one of our expensive engineering school can build an accurate model?

So why don't we even know the total weight of the trusses and corrugated pans of a single floor assembly?

psik


One self-supporting structure is ridiculously different than another self-supporting structure. How can you not see how stupid your model is in this context?


A self supporting structure means that every horizontal slice of the structure must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all segments of equal height above it. So for the top 15% to fall and destroy everything presents a physical problem.

If it can happen then why haven't any engineering schools built a model to demonstrate it by now? They have had ten years? A complete collapse means the mass below must be accelerated to come down within triple free fall time and it means supports strong enough to support the static load must dislocated, bent or broken.

The top of the structure should not have enough potential energy to do that in its free fall distance.

Of course people who just BELIEVE it don't need to wonder about it.

Of course if it is impossible then the Physics Profession has a problem for letting this crap go on for ten years. But we are supposed to get all excited about the Higgs Boson and robots to Mars.

psik
edit on 20-7-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join