Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 




Not to de-rail too much, but sometimes scientist's are dragged kicking and screaming to knowledge that they had prior thought impossible and based on the ravings of lunatic's

But the effects of fire on steel superstructure has been studied quite a bit. Hense the need for fire proofing on the steel before it was enclosed.

Plus the effects of fire on the exact type of trusses was studied after 911 because of the collapse. We don't hear those experts crying out either.

The only ones we do hear are a few web warriors on here and a few profiteers elsewhere on the web.

You would think that after 11 years the thoughts of the profiteers would have caused a few other experts to question their beliefs. But still no papers have been submitted for per review. Why is that?

Is it because the profiteers are like blood sucking insects? They want to feed off the subject for as long as they can. If they bite too deeply the host might swat them.

And still they sell their DVDs but refuse to confront their peers.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



Scientist's should learn to be a little more open minded.

No, real science requires discipline.


Real scientists don't have to produce a model that will do what they say.

hooper expects everyone to believe what they are told by who he accuses of being "real scientists".

Oddly the Laws of Physics do not give a damn about schools or degrees.

Curious how those scientists don't mention that the NIST can't specify the concrete in the towers.

I guess discipline really means "subservience to authority."

psik



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Real scientists don't have to produce a model that will do what they say.

You got that right at least.

hooper expects everyone to believe what they are told by who he accuses of being "real scientists".

You don't have to believe. You can go around the rest of your life accusing everyone of being stupid. Thats another option. Or you can go get the training, education and experience that would qualify you as a scientist and then test the theories yourself.

Oddly the Laws of Physics do not give a damn about schools or degrees.

Or self-proclaimed anonymous internet experts.

Curious how those scientists don't mention that the NIST can't specify the concrete in the towers.

Why is that curious? And how do you know? Did you read the report?

I guess discipline really means "subservience to authority."

No, thats not what it means. In a nutshell it means being consistent in your observations and methodology.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




Curious how those scientists don't mention that the NIST can't specify the concrete in the towers.

Perhaps you could email Richard Gage.
He claims to why the towers collapsed so he must have the exact plans and know the exact amount of steel and concrete.
That would give you the chance to ask a different question.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




Curious how those scientists don't mention that the NIST can't specify the concrete in the towers.

Perhaps you could email Richard Gage.
He claims to why the towers collapsed so he must have the exact plans and know the exact amount of steel and concrete.
That would give you the chance to ask a different question.


I emailed Richard Gage about Potential Energy and BS from Frank Greening in 2007.

I drove into Chicago to attend one of his dog and pony shows in 2008. I asked him about the distributions of steel and concrete. He looked at me like I had grown a second head and then said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But physics does not give a damn about blueprints. Blueprints have to conform to the physics.

Gage expects people to believe what he says because he can wave a degree around. The experts at AE911Truth don't try to explain things so high school kids can understand it. That would not make their expertise impressive.

psik



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But physics does not give a damn about blueprints. Blueprints have to conform to the physics.

Huh?

The blueprints don't have to conform to anything. They're blueprints.

Read the report.

Learn something about physics.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But physics does not give a damn about blueprints. Blueprints have to conform to the physics.

Huh?

The blueprints don't have to conform to anything.


ROFLMAO


Then what good are they?

PSIK



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Then what good are they?


To you - none. You have to know how to read them. And based on your history with the NIST report you are not capable.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Then what good are they?


To you - none. You have to know how to read them. And based on your history with the NIST report you are not capable.


Read what you say does not have to conform to anything. Your brilliance is becoming more intense.

psik



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I emailed Richard Gage about Potential Energy and BS from Frank Greening in 2007.

I drove into Chicago to attend one of his dog and pony shows in 2008. I asked him about the distributions of steel and concrete. He looked at me like I had grown a second head and then said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But physics does not give a damn about blueprints. Blueprints have to conform to the physics.

Gage expects people to believe what he says because he can wave a degree around. The experts at AE911Truth don't try to explain things so high school kids can understand it. That would not make their expertise impressive.

psik


What you're saying here is that you need completely accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete, and that the fact that you don't have it proves that physics were broken on 9/11?

That makes no sense. You can claim that you don't know whether the tower should have collapsed or not, because you don't have enough data. But you cannot claim that your version is more correct based on that one point. Have you ever addressed any of the other aspects of 9/11 that are not requiring this specific data set? My bet is that you ignore and deny them because you're focused on just one detail.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I emailed Richard Gage about Potential Energy and BS from Frank Greening in 2007.

I drove into Chicago to attend one of his dog and pony shows in 2008. I asked him about the distributions of steel and concrete. He looked at me like I had grown a second head and then said the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. But physics does not give a damn about blueprints. Blueprints have to conform to the physics.

Gage expects people to believe what he says because he can wave a degree around. The experts at AE911Truth don't try to explain things so high school kids can understand it. That would not make their expertise impressive.

psik


What you're saying here is that you need completely accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete, and that the fact that you don't have it proves that physics were broken on 9/11?


No I am saying that without that data it has not been proven that airliners and fires could produce the effects we see.

The Potential Energy of the towers cannot be correctly determined without that data which is a static condition and the conservation of momentum of a supposed collapse cannot be analysed which is a dynamic condition. The conservation of momentum alone should make the collapse take 12 seconds so having to break supports should have made it take longer.

psik



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The conservation of momentum alone should make the collapse take 12 seconds so having to break supports should have made it take longer.

Why? How many weeks does it take for the supports to break?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





The conservation of momentum alone should make the collapse take 12 seconds so having to break supports should have made it take longer.

How long does it take to snap a severly overloaded bolt when the shearing force is traveling at say 20mph?
I would bet a millisecond. Or about the same time it takes the 20mph object to pass through the 1 inch space of the bolt.
You keep assuming the total delay would be significant.
None of the experts on the entire planet support your assumption.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


it is not about snapping a BOLT is it....it is about snapping all the elements that were affect due to the force of gravity acting upon all those elements alone....It is a fair question...because the time element of the duration of the collapse is an important factor...I remember people arguing that the buildings did not approach free fall speeds...heck it was argued against it by some of the OS people in here...But when it was shown to be true..and NIST itself got pulled on it by none other than a haphazard physics teacher....guess what....did any of you gone..ooops we were wrong on that...nope...of course not....now what psik argues most of the time...is the TIME.

I agree...the buildings could not fall as fast as they did...unless resistance was somehow removed...resistance slows the time of the collapse down....so no matter what any one of you think...It is a fair and reasonable question....all threes building took the path of most resistance....period....no question there.

So since the building is going through the path of greatest resistance in all three case...yet the potential energy at point of collapse would be different yet all buildings seem to have reacted the same...but i guess this is just ok...and in many peoples opinions for some obscure reason think this is normal in a collapse scenario.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by samkent
 


it is not about snapping a BOLT is it....it is about snapping all the elements that were affect due to the force of gravity acting upon all those elements alone....It is a fair question...because the time element of the duration of the collapse is an important factor...I remember people arguing that the buildings did not approach free fall speeds...heck it was argued against it by some of the OS people in here...But when it was shown to be true..and NIST itself got pulled on it by none other than a haphazard physics teacher....guess what....did any of you gone..ooops we were wrong on that...nope...of course not....now what psik argues most of the time...is the TIME.

I agree...the buildings could not fall as fast as they did...unless resistance was somehow removed...resistance slows the time of the collapse down....so no matter what any one of you think...It is a fair and reasonable question....all threes building took the path of most resistance....period....no question there.

So since the building is going through the path of greatest resistance in all three case...yet the potential energy at point of collapse would be different yet all buildings seem to have reacted the same...but i guess this is just ok...and in many peoples opinions for some obscure reason think this is normal in a collapse scenario.


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?

Here is a cool video I just found that offers one possibility:

Actually, I embedded the vid but there's like two guys at the end doing some cursing (lol) so if you want to see it search youtube for: 'The WTC Demolition finally explained - How did they rig the towers'

The timed ground explosions at the 3/4 mark look a lot like the vertical tower 'collapses'.

Cheers
edit on 18-7-2012 by NWOwned because: removed embed due to language



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





The conservation of momentum alone should make the collapse take 12 seconds so having to break supports should have made it take longer.

How long does it take to snap a severly overloaded bolt when the shearing force is traveling at say 20mph?
I would bet a millisecond. Or about the same time it takes the 20mph object to pass through the 1 inch space of the bolt.
You keep assuming the total delay would be significant.
None of the experts on the entire planet support your assumption.


A single bolt does not hold 600 TONS. That was the weight of a single concrete floor slab outside the core.

Notice how we never here the total number of connections holding that floor. We are constantly bombarded with analogies of a single incident like that is supposed to be similar to dozens of sequential impacts. that are supposed to have occurred in less than 25 seconds.

Everyone is supposed judge a somewhat complicated event on the basis of a single simplified simple-minded event.

psik



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



A single bolt does not hold 600 TONS. That was the weight of a single concrete floor slab outside the core.

And why does that matter? Whether it was a single bolt or 600 bolts the length of time it takes to fail is the same. Or do you think that the forces are like some little guy with a hammer and chisel that has to run around to each bolt and break them?

Notice how we never here the total number of connections holding that floor.

Again, read the report.

We are constantly bombarded with analogies of a single incident like that is supposed to be similar to dozens of sequential impacts. that are supposed to have occurred in less than 25 seconds.

Bombarded? C'mon, no one is "bombarding" you with analogies. No one is even talking about this anymore and no one was ever talking about the stuff you keep going on about.

Everyone is supposed judge a somewhat complicated event on the basis of a single simplified simple-minded event.

Like hardware store washers on a broomhandle separated with copy paper loops? That kind of simplified simple-minded event?



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





Everyone is supposed judge a somewhat complicated event on the basis of a single simplified simple-minded event.

All of the worlds experts seem to understand it without a problem.
Why can't you?



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Everyone is supposed judge a somewhat complicated event on the basis of a single simplified simple-minded event.

All of the worlds experts seem to understand it without a problem.
Why can't you?

Like you know what the world's experts understand.

Then they should be able to prove 300 year old physics to everyone else.

But if their expertise is really nothing but pretending that the simple is difficult to understand then the issue is really bigger than 9/11. It is like there being hundreds of millions of more von Neumann machines today than there wqere in the 1980s and yet we still hardly ever hear the term von Neumann machine and most books purporting to explain computers don't use the term.

So in all fields we have people pretending to be smart when they do little more than hide information. And yet this is supposed to be the information age. It's more BS moving around faster.

psik



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


YOU go on like a stuck record, you have seen on here that the dynamic loads FALLING OBJECTS can generate you have a video camera so why don't you check what you have seen.


The dynamic loads are way above any safety factor that would be applied to the structure I suggest you go and look up recommended loads for fixings and ULTIMATE loads for fixings and compare with a dynamic load.

The other problem with the towers was the design as mass could drop internally that would cause problems for other parts of the structure


This is not a simple mass above mass below problem that you and others always claim its a multiple collision problem and then structural problem when the structure starts to collapse

It would also help if people like YOU when posting about fires etc on other structures actually KNEW what you were talking about psik






top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join