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.

 

Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

page: 22
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Akareyon
The damage done by the planes alone did not cause progressive collapse. The additional damage done by the fires did the rest. Very slowly, it put the building in an unstable equilibrium. It was a matter of centidegrees Celsius, micrometers, nanonewtons or the touch with a finger tip that decided if the whole undamaged tower structure underneath the impact zone would collapse now or a femtosecond later or earlier or never at all. All criteria for an unstable equilibrium are met. Throwing all the 500.000 tons of stuff into all four directions of the wind was now the new path of least resistance to go for the structure until the new equilibrium state - flat on the ground -.was reached a few seconds later. Which part again was it I did not understand?


The part where you claim that the towers were in a state of unstable equilibrium even before the planes crashed into them. Thats the part where you completely go wrong.

You are basically repeating exactly what I was saying. As if it was what you meant all along.



No, I'm looking at the energy conversion efficiency of the tower's mechanism. And it's pretty good, at least for a few seconds in each. A small input energy triggered a huge energy conversion. Give me examples for other things that undergo a huge energetic state change triggered by a small input energy. How many can you think of? Here are some:

  1. domino chain reactions (if dominos are set up purposefully)
  2. avalanches
  3. bombs
  4. traps
  5. machines
  6. WTC twin towers


Now it's your turn to name a few.


*All other buildings.

We already discussed this. Its why controlled demolition works. Thats when you came with your woo argument that the energy that goes into planning should be added to the energy available to make a building collapse.
edit on 1-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


Again I wish I had time to reply

But you just admitted the towers were a contrled demo.

Read what you wrote carefully. This thread deserves more flags.

And akareyon is going to finish destroying this post.




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by -PLB-

All your questions are answered in extremely high detail in the NIST report. The report you never read.


If I've never read it, then how come I know it better than you do? I mean you insist the towers pancaked when NIST themselves say they don't support that claim. So your arguments don't even come from the NIST report, but third party players like Bazant.

This is how ignorant you are, that you try and arrogantly state that you know better, and you get it wrong.


Why do you make things up all the time? I don't see the point?

How do sagging trusses pull in columns PLB? As a reminder here is your last attempt to spin it, and my reply that's rips you to shreds...

This is awful arrogance from someone who's latest engineering experience is texturing planes in a videogame.

You are not a doctor of physics Anok. You can't even be bothered to read papers to educate yourself. Please stop this ridiculous posting.


Wow at least one time you guys were a little challenging, now it's just too easy.

Shockingly, playing the idiot is the easiest part to play for you.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Akareyon
The damage done by the planes alone did not cause progressive collapse. The additional damage done by the fires did the rest. Very slowly, it put the building in an unstable equilibrium. It was a matter of centidegrees Celsius, micrometers, nanonewtons or the touch with a finger tip that decided if the whole undamaged tower structure underneath the impact zone would collapse now or a femtosecond later or earlier or never at all. All criteria for an unstable equilibrium are met. Throwing all the 500.000 tons of stuff into all four directions of the wind was now the new path of least resistance to go for the structure until the new equilibrium state - flat on the ground -.was reached a few seconds later. Which part again was it I did not understand?

The part where you claim that the towers were in a state of unstable equilibrium even before the planes crashed into them. Thats the part where you completely go wrong.

You are basically repeating exactly what I was saying.
Good, then you say that the intact portion of the tower was in an unstable equilibrium because an infinitesimally small displacement where the fires "raged" caused its total progressive collapse. Therefor, the towers were in an unstable equilibrium.


No, I'm looking at the energy conversion efficiency of the tower's mechanism. And it's pretty good, at least for a few seconds in each. A small input energy triggered a huge energy conversion. Give me examples for other things that undergo a huge energetic state change triggered by a small input energy. How many can you think of? Here are some:

  1. domino chain reactions (if dominos are set up purposefully)
  2. avalanches
  3. bombs
  4. traps
  5. machines
  6. WTC twin towers


Now it's your turn to name a few.


*All other buildings.

We already discussed this. Its why controlled demolition works.
Controlled demolition works because the buildings are rigged with explosives, intelligently, in strategic points, all over the place. Lots of chemical energy converted to heat and pressure. The unit to quantify explosive energy is tons of TNT. 1 ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 GJ.

Controlled demolition does not work when you put all the charges in one room and ignite them.

Controlled demolition sometimes goes wrong (1, 2, 3) and quickly a new equilibrium is found -- with a part of the building still standing tall and upright.

So, no, not all buildings - NO building except for those that fell on September 11th, 2001. But I like the way you are slowly beginning to compare the tower's demise with controlled demolitions.

Thats when you came with your woo argument that the energy that goes into planning should be added to the energy available to make a building collapse.
I have conclusively shown that it makes a substantial and quantifiable difference whether something just "happens" randomly and chaotically -- or foresight, knowledge, intelligence and purpose play a role. You had no reasonable argument against it then except for ridiculing a pellucid concept. Now you call it "woo argument" and turn my words around. That is utterly dishonest and clear evidence you are not remotely interested in the truth -- as long as it is not spoon-fed to you by an "authority" of your choice.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Good, then you say that the intact portion of the tower was in an unstable equilibrium because an infinitesimally small displacement where the fires "raged" caused its total progressive collapse. Therefor, the towers were in an unstable equilibrium

Come on Akareyon this is total nonsense. It's not an 'infintessimally small' displacement. That is a dishonest way to put it. People walked on the floors of the WTC just fine, they held their design load.

While I may have used 'unstable equilibrium' before, clearly it's being interpreted wrong so I will put my voice behind PLB's 'metastable state', which is a more accurate way to putting it.


Controlled demolition works because the buildings are rigged with explosives, intelligently, in strategic points, all over the place. Lots of chemical energy converted to heat and pressure. The unit to quantify explosive energy is tons of TNT. 1 ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 GJ.

Controlled demolition does not work when you put all the charges in one room and ignite them.

Not true. Controlled demolition works because there is significant gravitational potential energy stored in the towers. As you point out even a whole ton of TNT has very little energy compared to the towers.


But I like the way you are slowly beginning to compare the tower's demise with controlled demolitions.

Why? You've already proven that they couldn't possibly be controlled demolitions.


That is utterly dishonest and clear evidence you are not remotely interested in the truth -- as long as it is not spoon-fed to you by an "authority" of your choice.

Surely this also indicts you as your position has been one of doubt and tending towards 'conspiracy' the whole time. You are trying to fight against every possible authority but you keep making silly mistakes like using an energy balance instead of a force balance. Not understanding the mechanism behind an inelastic collision etc.

I like you Akareyon but you are clearly trying to argue towards a specific point here and then you have the gall to insult PLB for trying to clearly show you the accepted truth, not even his perspective.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Come on Akareyon this is total nonsense. It's not an 'infintessimally small' displacement. That is a dishonest way to put it. People walked on the floors of the WTC just fine, they held their design load.

While I may have used 'unstable equilibrium' before, clearly it's being interpreted wrong so I will put my voice behind PLB's 'metastable state', which is a more accurate way to putting it.


Haha this get's funnier, you and PLB make the perfect tag team. This thread should be a sticky.


Metastable

nonequilibrium state that may persist for a very long time.


Materials Science and Engineering Dictionary

Then there was this gem from PLB...


Originally posted by -PLB-
(Almost) every building is a metastable system. Why do you think that controlled demolition works? The stable state of any building would be for every individual member to be at ground level.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

What does that even mean?
Metastable state usually refers to matter that can become unstable, and then return back to a stable state, like boiling water, or melting steel. According to your argument the buildings became completely unstable, unable to return back to stability, from sagging trusses pulling in columns. As Akareyon keeps pointing out, a huge energy release from a very small input. That only happens in things like nuclear fusion.

I don't believe plane impacts, fires, and sagging trusses, can induce nuclear fusion, so we're back to there was some kind of "explosives" used. I say "explosives" loosely because I don't even want to speculate what that energy was because it is not necessary.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
People walked on the floors of the WTC just fine, they held their design load.
They didn't, they collapsed under their design load.

While I may have used 'unstable equilibrium' before, clearly it's being interpreted wrong so I will put my voice behind PLB's 'metastable state', which is a more accurate way to putting it.
And who brought up the term metastable state in this discussion? Say it loud and clearly.


Controlled demolition works because the buildings are rigged with explosives, intelligently, in strategic points, all over the place. Lots of chemical energy converted to heat and pressure. The unit to quantify explosive energy is tons of TNT. 1 ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 GJ.

Controlled demolition does not work when you put all the charges in one room and ignite them.

Not true.
Yes, it is true.

Controlled demolition works because there is significant gravitational potential energy stored in the towers.
...which helps to crush the floors. But first, it has to go kinetic. Without explosive, no dynamic. Too little explosive, too little dynamic. And building remains standing.

Surely this also indicts you as your position has been one of doubt and tending towards 'conspiracy' the whole time. You are trying to fight against every possible authority
That is not true, I rely on Newton, Euler, Galileo and Archimedes.

but you keep making silly mistakes like using an energy balance instead of a force balance.
Umm, what? Force is energy per distance, remember? And engineers compute using momenta, by the way.

But let's compare forces, if you insist.

Force of the topmost floor under the impact zone when everything was fine:

F_carry = m*g = 58,000,000 kg * 9.81 m/s² = 568,980,000 Newton ≈ 569 MN

Force of the complete structure during collapse:

F_deceleration = m*a = 58,000,000 kg * (9.81-4.08) m/s² = 332,340,000 Newton ≈ 332 Meganewton

332 MN < 569 MN. The complete structure had less friction force during collapse than what alone the topmost floor under the impact zone securely held aloft for 30 years.

Not understanding the mechanism behind an inelastic collision etc.
Well, I understand it well enough to ask for more examples of a small rigid body axially and totally compressing a bigger rigid body with the same or similar elastic properties.

I like you Akareyon but you are clearly trying to argue towards a specific point here
I already stated I don't care what you believe as long as you stop acting everybody who argues against the official story must be a total moron.

and then you have the gall to insult PLB for trying to clearly show you the accepted truth, not even his perspective.
PLB could hardly go one single post without ridicule and calling my arguments nonsensical and twisting my words, and now you accuse me of insulting him? That's not even funny anymore.

There is only one truth as soon as present becomes past. Some choose not to accept it, but that doesn't change truth. All the different versions of telling it are merely lies and attempts at an approximation. Therefor, the best lie must be found. The official story is the worst lie ever told.
edit on 2-6-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Good, then you say that the intact portion of the tower was in an unstable equilibrium because an infinitesimally small displacement where the fires "raged" caused its total progressive collapse. Therefor, the towers were in an unstable equilibrium.


Earlier you asked for evidence for my claim that "your understanding of concepts in physics is severely lacking". Right here you clearly show that you are not familiar with important terms and concepts in physics. Infinitesimal has a specific meaning in physics, it describes a specific concept.

Now I do not say you are stupid for not knowing this, but making up your own definition is a rather bad practice. These are really basic concepts in physics. You earlyer on talked about Feynman. Feynman has some excellent books on physics. I can highly recommend "The Feynman lectures on physics". Its 3 volume's, and once you mastered those you understand most of the basic physics. Obviously, as electrical engineer I have focused mainly on volume 2 which is about electromagnetism. And no I haven't even mastered that volume. Though thats ok as I am no physicist.

I would really recommend to learn the "accepted consensus" in physics first before you start rejecting it.



Controlled demolition works because the buildings are rigged with explosives, intelligently, in strategic points, all over the place. Lots of chemical energy converted to heat and pressure. The unit to quantify explosive energy is tons of TNT. 1 ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.184 GJ.

Controlled demolition does not work when you put all the charges in one room and ignite them.

Controlled demolition sometimes goes wrong (1, 2, 3) and quickly a new equilibrium is found -- with a part of the building still standing tall and upright.

So, no, not all buildings - NO building except for those that fell on September 11th, 2001. But I like the way you are slowly beginning to compare the tower's demise with controlled demolitions.


This is what you would call the fallacy "shifting the goalposts". You ask for "things that undergo a huge energetic state change triggered by a small input energy". I point out that all buildings are. You answer that I am wrong by adding the condition that it may not have been intelligently planned. That is a disingenuous debating tactic. And what makes it even worse, you can not come with a good reason why that newly invented rule should be there to begin with.

Still, How about these buildings?



I have conclusively shown that it makes a substantial and quantifiable difference whether something just "happens" randomly and chaotically -- or foresight, knowledge, intelligence and purpose play a role. You had no reasonable argument against it then except for ridiculing a pellucid concept. Now you call it "woo argument" and turn my words around. That is utterly dishonest and clear evidence you are not remotely interested in the truth -- as long as it is not spoon-fed to you by an "authority" of your choice.


This is a fallacy called a strawman argument. You came with the argument that the amount of actual energy put into planning or calculating is somehow of relevance. My position was that that specific claim is total nonsense. I never said that planning has no influence on the behavior of a building collapse. Again, you are exercising disingenuous debating tactics.
edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Right here you clearly show that you are not familiar with important terms and concepts in physics.
Wait, a new trick - I'm not impressed when you use a word you think I never heard of, then you claim I have no clue what you are talking about? Here's what I wrote:

The damage done by the planes alone did not cause progressive collapse. The additional damage done by the fires did the rest. Very slowly, it put the building in an unstable equilibrium. It was a matter of centidegrees Celsius, micrometers, nanonewtons or the touch with a finger tip that decided if the whole undamaged tower structure underneath the impact zone would collapse now or a femtosecond later or earlier or never at all. All criteria for an unstable equilibrium are met.
With this, you said, I repeated exactly what you said.

a building in unstable equilibrium requires an infinitesimal displacement in order to cause global collapse. Even touching it with your finger tip would cause collapse. That is the definition of unstable equilibrium.
Therefor, the towers were in unstable equilibrium. An infinitesimal change in the impact zone led to global collapse of an intact structure.

A system is said to be in a state of unstable equilibrium if, for any possible small displacement from the equilibrium configuration, upsetting forces will arise which tend to accelerate the system to depart even further from the equilibrium configuration.

This is what you would call the fallacy "shifting the goalposts". You ask for "things that undergo a huge energetic state change triggered by a small input energy". I point out that all buildings are. You answer that I am wrong by adding the condition that it may not have been intelligently planned. That is a disingenuous debating tactic.
If I may point you to the fact that you are the one who utilized it by saying "all buildings are... when you add a few kg TNT of explosives" ;-)

Still, How

However, this line of investigation into weight led to the discovery that the original structural engineer had made a serious error in calculating the building's structural load. The structural engineer had calculated the building's live load (the weight of the building's potential inhabitants, furniture, fixtures, and fittings) but the building's dead load (the weight of the building itself) was completely omitted from the calculation. This meant that the building as constructed could not support its own weight. Collapsing was only a matter of time. After three different supporting columns failed in the days before the disaster, the other columns -- which took on the added weight no longer supported by the failed columns -- could not support the building.

about

Those buildings in central Rio are getting old and more attention has to be paid to their maintenance.

these

The head of the Bangladesh Fire Service & Civil Defense, Ali Ahmed Khan, said that the upper four floors had been built without a permit. Rana Plaza's architect, Massood Reza, said the building was planned for shops and offices – but not factories. Other architects stressed the risks involved in placing factories inside a building designed only for shops and offices, noting the structure was potentially not strong enough to bear the weight and vibration of heavy machinery.

Bangladeshi news media reported that inspectors had discovered cracks in the building the day before

buildings?

Een deel van het gebouw stortte in.
(emphasis mine)

repositories.lib.utexas.edu... Fig. 1.11 on page 13 has an aerial view of the Bouwkunde after the collapse.

Nice examples. Old buildings that were being tampered with, buildings that were too heavy to support their own weight and buildings with partial collapse after a long fire. Which one comes closest to what happened to the Twins?

This is a fallacy called a strawman argument. You came with the argument that the amount of actual energy put into planning or calculating is somehow of relevance. My position was that that specific claim is total nonsense. I never said that planning has no influence on the behavior of a building collapse.
So you say that the energy put into planning and calculating is of no relevance, but it has influence on the behavior of a building collapse. It has no relevance, but it has influence. Influence without relevance. I'll let that sink in and meditate on it until it makes sense. Influence, but no relevance. Irrelevant influence. The towers were not brought down by irrelevant influence -- or maybe they were, it's irrelevant anyway. That's even better than g*d's finger theory, what do you think, Another_Nut?
edit on 2-6-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Therefor, the towers were in unstable equilibrium.


You either have an extremely bad short term memory or you are trying to weasel yourself out of this situation because you realize you are wrong. You said:


You are saying the towers were erected in an unstable equilibrium.


And you kept insisting that I am saying that because I agreed that with a relative smaller energy input you can get a larger energy transformation.

You were talking about the state of the building before any plane had impacted them.



Nice examples. Old buildings that were being tampered with, buildings that were too heavy to support their own weight and buildings with partial collapse after a long fire. Which one comes closest to what happened to the Twins?


None of your emphasis changes the fact that these buildings collapsed due to a relatively small energy input, without any intelligent planning. Of course you move the goal post even further now by adding a new rules, the buildings may not be old and they may not have been tampered with or been on fire for long.

Well, luckily the hijackers didn't tamper with the WTC towers when they flew those planes in then. And luckily WTC 7 wasn't on fire for that long. Oh wait.



So you say that the energy put into planning and calculating is of no relevance, but it has influence on the behavior of a building collapse. It has no relevance, but it has influence. Influence without relevance. I'll let that sink in and meditate on it until it makes sense. Influence, but no relevance. Irrelevant influence. The towers were not brought down by irrelevant influence -- or maybe they were, it's irrelevant anyway. That's even better than g*d's finger theory, what do you think, Another_Nut?


No, the energy put into the plan has no relevance. Whether a whole team required 10 nuclear power plants running full power for a year or weather someone made the plan consuming a cup of coffee, while overcoming the friction of his pen on the paper, both can come up with the same plan. One just required next to no energy, while the other plan required a enormous amount. The end result is exactly the same as the plans are the same.

So what matters is the plan itself, and not the energy put into the plan. Do you really not understand this?
edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You were talking about the state of the building before any plane had impacted them.
The plane impacted the 80th floor or so. So everything between the 79th and ground level was left unscathed. The damage in the impact zone put the whole structure in an unstable equilibrium.


Nice examples. Old buildings that were being tampered with, buildings that were too heavy to support their own weight and buildings with partial collapse after a long fire. Which one comes closest to what happened to the Twins?


None of your emphasis changes the fact that these buildings collapsed due to a relatively small energy input, without any intelligent planning. Of course you move the goal post even further now by adding a new rules, the buildings may not be old and they may not have been tampered with or been on fire for long.
I did not move the goal posts at all, I acknowledged you scored 100% so I asked what explanation you like best for the catastrophic failure of the Twins. Were they old slipshod buildings that went unmaintained for decades or were they too heavy to sustain themselves? If so, why was noone held accountable?

No, the energy put into the plan has no relevance. Whether a whole team required 10 nuclear power plants running full power for a year or weather someone made the plan consuming a cup of coffee, while overcoming the friction of his pen on the paper, both can come up with the same plan. One just required next to no energy, while the other plan required a enormous amount. The end result is exactly the same as the plans are the same.
That's what I said, it depends on the quality of your thinking.

So what matters is the plan itself,
That's what I said.

and not the energy put into the plan.
You are attacking a point I never made:

me
Are all skyscrapers metastable systems, waiting to be triggered by a small input energy like a mouse trap?

you
Yes, that is why controlled demolition works. For instance, take a look at this one:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Only 88kg of explosives. Peanuts compared to the potential energy in that building.

me
88kg of explosives, intelligently placed. Just throwing them through an open window would hardly have the same effect. Intelligence, planning and intention are a form of energy, as it seems. You're getting very close to what I'm trying to say here...

Just like a bunch of domino randomly set up on a given area will not completely collapse progressively, only if you set them up intelligently so they do.

you
[...]And I think we also agree that the amount of energy released there is much more than that of explosives.

me
To which I replied with the metapsysical hypothesis that intelligence, knowledge, purpose and meticulous planning clearly are a form of energy, as a domino experiment will easily show.

you
I must have missed it, but what a bunch of nonsense.

me
Yeah, what a bunch of nonsense!!!

you
We were talking about (real) energy that can be quantified in Joule. You for some extremely weird reason try to equate (real) energy to (mental) energy that goes into planning and calculations. That is just complete silliness.
And that's how it went on. You've been fighting against your own shadow the whole time, dear friend, attacking a statement I never made, so eager were you to show everybody what a fool I am and how smart and superior you are.

All I said was that intelligence, planning and intention seem to be a form of energy. And now you come and say "what matters is the plan itself, and not the energy put into the plan." This whole discussion could progress much easier if you'd just leave your ego out of it. This is a matter of science and physics, not opinions or intellectual supremacy. But I'm glad now that you agree that having a plan matters and influences the outcome. It was a little difficult, but, yay, it's the result that matters, even if we spent a lot of energy for our little consensus.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
The plane impacted the 80th floor or so. So everything between the 79th and ground level was left unscathed. The damage in the impact zone put the whole structure in an unstable equilibrium.


And you were clearly claiming that the structure already was an unstable equilibrium before any planes crashed into it. Which was wrong. After which I explained to you that they only reached a state of unstable equilibrium after the plane crashed. Which you almost one on one repeated, acting as if you were saying that all along.

In fact, you were arguing that it was against normal design practice to design a building that is in unstable equilibrium. You are really being disingenuous here.




I did not move the goal posts at all, I acknowledged you scored 100% so I asked what explanation you like best for the catastrophic failure of the Twins. Were they old slipshod buildings that went unmaintained for decades or were they too heavy to sustain themselves? If so, why was noone held accountable?


In that case, I misinterpreted. And I think you already have your answer. There was quite severe damage done to them. That is the explanation. Not a lack of maintenance or them being too heavy. No, it was damage as result of planes and fires.




And that's how it went on. You've been fighting against your own shadow the whole time, dear friend, attacking a statement I never made, so eager were you to show everybody what a fool I am and how smart and superior you are.


You are flat out lying here. Your claim was


metapsysical hypothesis that intelligence, knowledge, purpose and meticulous planning clearly are a form of energy


Lets see what you came with to support your claim:

1) Landauer's principle


first argued in 1961[1] by Rolf Landauer of IBM, is a physical principle pertaining to the lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of a computation


2) Information converted to energy


Physicists in Japan have shown experimentally that a particle can be made to do work simply by receiving information, rather than energy.


3) Physicists Convert Information Into Energy

You were clearly arguing that the calculations/information itself was a form of energy. Else those sources make no sense whatsoever.

You do know that lies are not a good foundation for your card house right? It will collapse every time.
edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You are flat out lying here.
This definetily crosses a line. I merely disproved the allegation that knowledge and purpose being a form of energy that can scale up to quantifiable orders of magnitude is a "bunch of nonsense".

The debate is becoming self-referential, personal and emotional and has left the path of manners and decorum. The topic is not the collapse anymore, but words, definitions and who said what and why. If someone is going to so great lengths to defend his world view against reason, logic and the laws of nature, I must accept that and will not push further.

Especially since this is the ump-teenth time we're back to "but there were planes, and fires, of course the whole intact and redundant structure underneath must suddenly self-decompose under the tremendous force of the mass it was designed to hold aloft; all buildings do that, just look at this slipshod architecture and that controlled demolition"...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


This has nothing to do with emotions or semantics. I explain in great detail how you are being disingeneous. I quote all the relevant text to this accusation, and confront you with it. I do of course think it is a shame when people resort to these kind of tactics, but I am quite used to it, and can identify them objectively and without getting emotional. Its too bad that you went down that road. Guess this ends our discussion.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

You broaden the definition of "metastable" to encompass everything that is not lying flat on the ground, and at the same time narrow the definition of "unstable equilibrium" down to a building that is about to collapse -- and then call me a disingeneous liar? Thank you so much for this wonderful, open and enlightening debate :-)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
reply to post by -PLB-
 

You broaden the definition of "metastable" to encompass everything that is not lying flat on the ground, and at the same time narrow the definition of "unstable equilibrium" down to a building that is about to collapse -- and then call me a disingeneous liar? Thank you so much for this wonderful, open and enlightening debate :-)


I am using the definitions that are used in physics. Look them up. Learn about them.

You on the other hand are making up your own definitions. I am not calling you disingenuous because you messed up with those definitions, I am calling you disingenuous because you change from "the buildings were erected in an unstable equilibrium" to "unstable equilibrium only happened after plane impacts". And "Computation/information is a form of energy relevant to collapse" to "Only the energy in the system itself matters in the end". Of course, I only encourage you to change your position on these subject, as your previous position was wrong, and your new position isn't, but you act as if it was your position all along. And that is the issue here. The main issue here is probably just ego.
edit on 2-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Well, I understand it well enough to ask for more examples of a small rigid body axially and totally compressing a bigger rigid body with the same or similar elastic properties.


You seem to have a lack of understanding of how the lower portion of the towers collapsed. It did not fail under compression, it failed under shear at the truss seat connections to the columns.

This NIST document describes what happened after collapse initiation, The evidence seen in photos and video supports it.

www.aws.org...

There is no evidence for column compression failures that you keep alluding to.

If you wish to continue arguing the lower section of the building failed under compression, please show us some evidence of compression failures (as in: midspan buckles in exterior columns)

I will be happy to show you all the photos of sheared off truss seats you want.





posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
You seem to have a lack of understanding of how the lower portion of the towers collapsed. It did not fail under compression, it failed under shear at the truss seat connections to the columns.


If that is the case then how did they not fail during the sagging truss pull-in?

What do you think would be able to resist the most load, the truss seats with their 1" and 5/8" bolts, or the box columns?

You need to think really carefully how you answer that, because either way will contradict your claim.


And showing the missing truss plates does not prove your case, not even slightly. Think about it.

edit on 6/2/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Akareyon
Well, I understand it well enough to ask for more examples of a small rigid body axially and totally compressing a bigger rigid body with the same or similar elastic properties.


You seem to have a lack of understanding of how the lower portion of the towers collapsed. It did not fail under compression,

Physical compression means that a material under compressive stress reduces its volume.
simple.wikipedia.org...

In mechanics, compression is the application of balanced inward ("pushing") forces to different points a material or structure, that is, forces with no net sum or torque directed so as to reduce its size in one or more directions.
en.wikipedia.org...

1. A force that tends to shorten or squeeze something, decreasing its volume.
2. The degree to which a substance has decreased in size (in volume, length, or some other dimension) after being or while being subject to stress. See also strain.
science.yourdictionary.com...

Towers before: big volume. Towers after: small volume. Volume reduced. Small rigid body compressed bigger rigid body with similar properties. Column compression I never talked of. Two sources for my nonsensical conjectures quoted. Really sorry if misunderstood complicated thing.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If that is the case then how did they not fail during the sagging truss pull-in?

What do you think would be able to resist the most load, the truss seats with their 1" and 5/8" bolts, or the box columns?

You need to think really carefully how you answer that, because either way will contradict your claim.


And showing the missing truss plates does not prove your case, not even slightly. Think about it.


The sagging truss thing has been explained to you so many times in so many ways, and yet, you still cant grasp the concept. I will try to explain it to you again, this time using small words and big pictures,

Starting with the trusses. The floor trusses were designed so a load placed on the floor above the truss, is transmitted through the truss and in to the column, resulting in a purely vertical load on the column. (no inward or outward force) In a fire situation the web members (the zig zag part between the upper and lower cords of the truss) slowly fail under compression and the span of the truss goes in to tension. This places an inward pull on the columns it is attached to.






Next the columns: Unprotected steel columns under a compression load and exposed to fire will fail as shown in the photos below. The force applied by the sagging trusses merely gave the columns a direction to go. Most of the force that actually bowed the columns came from the compression load applied to them by the weight of the building above.






The results of the compression force on the columns and the inward pull of the sagging trusses can clearly be seen in this gif.





Originally posted by ANOK
What do you think would be able to resist the most load, the truss seats with their 1" and 5/8" bolts, or the box columns?


Before collapse initiation the sagging trusses presented a slowly applied inward load on the heated columns causing them to bow.

After collapse initiation the truss seats were subjected to an impact load from the falling floors. The difference is not hard to understand.

As far as the trusses being strong enough (enough cross section of steel) to fail the columns... WTC 6 was pulled down with just 4 cables.



"We got the cables attached to four different locations going up. Now they're pulling the building to the north. It's not every day you try to pull down a 8 story building with cables."





new topics




 
10
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join