Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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.


So you're saying that your model IS a model of the towers, in the sense that it is modeling the elementary model of a self-supporting collapse. Well, I've got news for you. Two different self supporting structures have different strengths against falling masses. Your "self-supporting structure" is held together by a broom handle and zero space in-between washers and paper loops. It also means that the air in the paper loops has nowhere to escape, unlike the towers, which were able to blow out windows as an escape for air, as well as blow air down and up.


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.


It has been modeled by engineering schools. You, however, seem to think that the modern method of computer modeling (even though it's way more accurate, because it does not have the problem of square law) is bad. You want a physical model, and that's just retarded.


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)


You claim this, but then you go on about how you don't even have accurate data, so how can you even make that claim? You make NO sense.




posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
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.


So you're saying that your model IS a model of the towers, in the sense that it is modeling the elementary model of a self-supporting collapse. Well, I've got news for you. Two different self supporting structures have different strengths against falling masses. Your "self-supporting structure" is held together by a broom handle and zero space in-between washers and paper loops. It also means that the air in the paper loops has nowhere to escape, unlike the towers, which were able to blow out windows as an escape for air, as well as blow air down and up.


ROFL

So you are assuming an airtight seal between the washers and the dowel and the paper loops are cut perfectly to be flush against the washers.


If the washers were perfectly centered on the dowel there would be about a 1/16th inch gap all of the way around between the dowel and the inner edge of the washer. A seal as tight as you are implying would not allow the washers to fall freely. My model is one of a gravitational collapse from the top down. It not a tube-in-tube structure. But it does demonstrate physical principles that must be involved in any top down gravitational collapse.

Any more moronic drivel you want to make up?

psik



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


Kevin Ryan is your expert? I watched a short portion of the video and all I saw were personal attacks and a apples to oranges comparison. If this is the extent of your "evidence" no wonder no one believes you or listens to you.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


at the video lets debunk it after the first 13 seconds of it, have a look at the Madrid tower compared to the twin towers ok

WTC towers 110 floors steel framed tube in tube design.
Madrid Windsor Tower REINFORCED CONCRETE CORE WITH A STEEL FRAME WORK.
Concrete upto the 17th floor with some perimeter steelwork.Reinforced concrete core top to bottom!!!




The image above shows the reinforced concrete core BUT whats happened to the steelwork?


t the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began



Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor.



A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.


Thw Windsor Tower was 32 floors,29 above and 3 below ground.


Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.


Now WHY dont YOU go and learn to compare apples with apples


WHEN and only WHEN you find another 110 floor steel framed structure with tube in tube design that when struck by a large aircraft at high speed and goes on fire and DOESN'T collapse then you can compare them!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
[
From your Sited Wiki Article

Advocates of Keynesian economics argue that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes which

require active policy responses by the public sector, particularly monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government

to stabilize output over the business cycle.[1


Like I said, Keynesianism is using the financial system to keep the economy under control.


1. That is not what you had said before.
2. You're conflating "the financial system" with the central bank and government expenditure.
3. You still have not provided any evidence for your original claims that all architects are employed by people and organizations that profit from the "OS".


OK I guess I didn't say that exactly, but I broached the idea that all proffesionals, world wide, get their money from the system, and going against the OS is biting the hand that feeds.

The central bank was created to control the financial system, to save everyone from financial crises, therefore the central bank is the financial system. It could print enough money to buy everything on the planet and cut the value of the currency we hold buy 50 to 1000 percent in one day.

911 --> the war on terror, gave the governments around the world a plausible reason to ask the central banks for the maximum possible amount of loans. Professionals are paid by the government and by corporations that borrow immense amounts of money. Prooving the OS as an oversimplification of the workings of the powers that be would have removed the entire basis for all government expansion since 911 and in turn much of the financial expansion since 911 also.

The normal source of income for all professionals who could investigate 911 is based on a strong central goverment and financial system. Do you think that the buildings the architects are hired to build are bought for cash? Do you think the average physicist would have a job without easy credit for student loans and research programs? Do you think engineers work for cash?

The way the system currently is run, all professionals are dependant on a strong central authority because that is where there jobs come from. 911 = stronger central authority



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
So according to the self-proclaimed experts on ATS it’s clear as the nose on your face..


I never claimed to be an expert. I just question things like why break a protocol by cutting up pieces of debri and send it on ships over to china less than 4-6 months after the worst event in the history of this Nation?? done not to soldiers in a battlefield but to a civilian population and emergency crews who lost their lives and many dying from asbestos and other contamination to this day. What EXPERTS? What about the Experts who say different? their educated opinions and even lab results of finding thermate don't count?

why do people come on here and tell others on here how closed minded and ignorant they are for being one track minded when they're just as guilty for supporting this "Official account" which totally ignored a 47 story building by not even adding it to the official report? that building 7 would be the second or third largest building in a major city like San Francisco. ITS A BIG EFFEN DEAL!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 




The way the system currently is run, all professionals are dependant on a strong central authority because that is where there jobs come from. 911 = stronger central authority

You act like architects don't have to survive in the private world after they recieve their school loans.
I think you will find that most engineers and architects work for companies that have business dealings with private money. Very few projects are government funded. Therefore they have no reason to 'tow the governemnt line'.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stew4media
 



why do people come on here and tell others on here how closed minded and ignorant they are for being one track minded when they're just as guilty for supporting this "Official account" which totally ignored a 47 story building by not even adding it to the official report? that building 7 would be the second or third largest building in a major city like San Francisco. ITS A BIG EFFEN DEAL!


What "official report" was that .....

911 Commission was set up to investigate the intelligence failures which allowed the hijackers into the country
and to take flight training without being stopped


WTC 7 was not involved because it was collateral damage, as were dozen other buildings in area

So what about this "official report" ....?

Was issued in May 2002, several years before the 911 Commision


Maybe like to peruse it


911research.wtc7.net...





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join