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.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.
I can.
So what collapse time did you get?
psik
Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??
What's the evidence for that?
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?
psik
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Well it is certainly curious that all of these EXPERTS can't program a magical collapse which is slowed down only by the conservation of momentum which takes 12 seconds to collapse with constant masses.
I can.
So what collapse time did you get?
psik
Why do you people assume that explosives would've sped up the collapse??
What's the evidence for that?
Why don't you do some physics and quit worrying about the psychological bullsh# of assumptions?
psik
Touch a nerve did I?
Is it not an assumption on your part to say that explosives brought down the towers when there is absolutely no evidence of that. None. And where's the evidence that explosives, had they been used, would've sped up the collapse? Your physics has misguided you it seems. But perhaps you can add some firecrackers to your model to see what would happen. If anything it would be fun to see you blow it to smithereens.
And if I missed it, please point me to the page where you disputed the NIST report bullet by bullet on how the collapse initiated and then progressed. Then please show how explosives accounted for it otherwise. Really I would like to read it.
Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I thought you said that model is not meant to model what would happen in a collapse? You made that very clear when it was proven in the past to be useless when considering the mechanics of the tower collapses.
Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Then why did you build your model. Your own words say it is worthless...
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what collapse time did you get?
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.
Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.
psik
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.
Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.
psik
Step up to the plate and take a stand already. You're just like all the other truthers. Claim this couldn't happen, and claim that couldn't happen, but you won't actually specify how it happened. Typical truther bs.
It wasn't explosives? Then what the hell was it?
If you can't offer up a hypothesis then perhaps you can stop posting your truther physics nonsense.
You're not smarter then the engineering schools you keep bashing. It's tired
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what collapse time did you get?
psik
Just under 12 seconds for failure above 98th floor with infinite compaction, pretty much what you got.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can believe you touched a nerve all you want. More psychological bullsh#.
Let's see you find a post where I said explosives did anything. All I talk about is why planes and gravity could not do it. I don't know what did it and don't pretend to. But the steel has to be properly distributed in skyscrapers so they can hold themselves up so discussing this for TEN YEARS without that data is ridiculous. Our engineering schools are at fault for not bringing it up regardless of what destroyed the towers.
psik
Step up to the plate and take a stand already. You're just like all the other truthers. Claim this couldn't happen, and claim that couldn't happen, but you won't actually specify how it happened. Typical truther bs.
It wasn't explosives? Then what the hell was it?
If you can't offer up a hypothesis then perhaps you can stop posting your truther physics nonsense.
You're not smarter then the engineering schools you keep bashing. It's tired
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what collapse time did you get?
psik
Just under 12 seconds for failure above 98th floor with infinite compaction, pretty much what you got.
And that is even without air resistance. LOL
So if all of those masses had to have physical supports, keeping the total mass the same then in the REAL WORLD the structure would have to get heavier toward the bottom and energy would have to be expended destroying the supports. So do you really believe the structure could come down in less than 30 seconds?
A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.
The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.
Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.
The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?
So why hasn’t any engineering school done such a simple simulation?
psik
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
It is not my fault that you need authority to tell you what to think and can't figure out the obvious questions. It is grade school physics dude. What is stopping you from building my model and testing it yourself? Oh, I know. You doubt your own intelligence so you expect everyone else to do the same.
I didn't say it was not explosives. I just didn't say what it was. I wasn't there on 9/11. You can find plenty of videos with witnesses talking about hearing explosions and videos with sounds of explosions but you want to ignore those too so why should I talk about explosives? I can't prove anything about them. But physics is still physics and skyscrapers have to hold themselves up.
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So they did there job, until of course they ultimately became weakened by the severe damage caused by the planes that day.
Collapse initiation for both buildings occurred right at or near the point of impact. All videos confirm this. So that means explosives would've had to have been placed and subsequently detonated, first, in the impact zones. How could this have been done? How did the airplanes not compromise all the wiring and charges? How does a demo occur with explosives from the top down? That's never been done before afaik.
Such simple questions that not one damn truther has ever satisfactorily answered or paid any attention to. But keep spewing on about your physics how all the engineering schools who you believe are not as smart as you are all in on it. And keep ignoring the real conspiracy in all this...
Originally posted by liejunkie01
Physics can and does explain how the buildings went down...........The truthers do not want to hear it.....at all...
Originally posted by Kester
NIST didn't test for explosive residues.
Originally posted by esdad71
ANOK and psik,
For gods sakes, if you are in this thread you should understand basic physics. #, if you went to high school you should. Why does the truther always do this? You deflect. That;s it. I asked psik a simple question. Why did he build the model? His answer was to explain to me the design of the towers. Really? I know the design I want to know why you made a model that does not represent the way the towers were build at all. Where is your outside support? At least make it similar.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by PhotonEffect
So they did there job, until of course they ultimately became weakened by the severe damage caused by the planes that day.
So that is your explanation of the physics?
Actually all videos confirm the collapse started with the core, and the top section started collapsing independent of the bottom section. It could have been done very easily, and yes it has been done before. Who says there was wiring?
Such simple questions that have no relevance at all.
The answers are in the physics we keep spewing, whether you like it or not. .
Can you honestly explain how the core collapses?