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
How are you supposed to prevent it if you don't know how it happened?
How are you supposed to figure out how it happened if you don't ask a question as simple as, "Where was the center of mass?".
But then the experts must defend the stupidity. And of course they are EXPERTS.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How are you supposed to prevent it if you don't know how it happened?
How are you supposed to figure out how it happened if you don't ask a question as simple as, "Where was the center of mass?".
It's cause and effect psikey. You don't learn how to prevent the cause by studying the effect. You learn how to prevent the effect by studying the cause. It comes as no great shock that you are unable to see this.
But then the experts must defend the stupidity. And of course they are EXPERTS.
They are psikey. You are not.
Have you come to terms with his yet? Have you realised the reality of your situation? I doubt that. I told you I wasn't going to go around in circles, and your delusions continue unchecked.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr
It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.
The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.
A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.
psik
Originally posted by huh2142
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by psikeyhackr
It appears that you understand that different buildings are built differently. However, you do not understand the design differences of the Twin Towers and the consequences of its design on its survivability.
The people who have chosen to BELIEVE that the airliner impacts and resulting fires could totally destroy the towers must come up with some kind of rationalizations for their BELIEF. The tube-in-tube design of the towers was a change in the horizontal distribution of the steel compared to a conventional design. But not necessarily a change in the vertical distributions. It is GRAVITY which must determine that and the ability to withstand the wind.
A collapse involves vertical movement so that steel distribution must be factored in. So regardless of what actually happened the Physics Profession should have been asking about that long before now. But then BELIEVERS don't need data. Physics is not supposed to be about BELIEF.
psik
I'm not a priest or an exorcist. I'm not trying to make you change your beliefs about physics. I'm just trying to point out that your 1 dimensional analysis will not help you understand the 3D world we live in. A change in the vertical will have an impact on the horizontal.
The belief that 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining building illustrates a lack of understanding of physics. In a Sumo match does the bigger sumo always win? In a (American) football game does the bigger player always stop the smaller? In all these cases the winner is the on that can apply more "force" to the other. This applies to the building as well. Can the top portion supply enough force to overwhelm the bottom portion. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC7 the answer is yes.
Originally posted by huh2142
The belief that 15% of the building cannot destroy the remaining building illustrates a lack of understanding of physics. In a Sumo match does the bigger sumo always win? In a (American) football game does the bigger player always stop the smaller? In all these cases the winner is the on that can apply more "force" to the other. This applies to the building as well. Can the top portion supply enough force to overwhelm the bottom portion. In the case of the Twin Towers and WTC7 the answer is yes.
Originally posted by ANOK
The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by ANOK
The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion.
We understand the laws of motion. We also understand that the lower part of the building could only push back with the strength of 1floor against the falling mass of 15+ floors.
We also understand gravitational potential energy.
Originally posted by waypastvne
We understand the laws of motion. We also understand that the lower part of the building could only push back with the strength of 1floor against the falling mass of 15+ floors.
We also understand gravitational potential energy.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?
Originally posted by ANOK
as well as the static mass pushing up.
Originally posted by waypastvne
A question for Truthers.
How many levels was this truss seat designed to hold ?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Question for idiots:
How many truss seats were there around the internal and external edges of each floor? So you can show pictures of individual truss seats. That is so impressive. Just a single concrete floor slab was SIX HUNDRED TONS. Are you trying to say that was held by a single truss seat?
So how much energy was required to break all of those truss seats? So how did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds? How do you do this BELIEVABLE PHYSICS without DATA?
psik
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then how did it support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS for 28 years?
The failure points that lead to the progressive collapse had to support the weight of only ONE LEVEL for 28 year. When the time came that it had to support the weight of FIFTEEN LEVELS it failed.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Wouldn't that create LOTS OF FRICTION? Wouldn't that slow the collapse down?
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Question for idiots:
How many truss seats were there around the internal and external edges of each floor? So you can show pictures of individual truss seats. That is so impressive. Just a single concrete floor slab was SIX HUNDRED TONS. Are you trying to say that was held by a single truss seat?
So how much energy was required to break all of those truss seats? So how did the north tower come down in less than 26 seconds? How do you do this BELIEVABLE PHYSICS without DATA?
psik
So are you saying you don't want to answer the question ?
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That single truss seat was designed to hold ZERO LEVELS.
So you can't tell the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?
psik
Originally posted by ANOK
The problem is like most who support the OS you fail to understand the laws of motion. It doesn't matter how much force the 15 floors had, which wasn't much from dropping a few feet, the 95 floors still had more force pushing back against the falling mass.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That single truss seat was designed to hold ZERO LEVELS.
So you can't tell the difference between a FLOOR and a LEVEL?
psik
Excellent answer, I agree. You have been saving it held 15 levels for 28 years and just suddenly collapsed.
Glad to see the correction, let's move on.
How many floors was it designed to hold up ?
Excellent answer, I agree.
Originally posted by exponent
'dropping a few feet'. Yes of course, dropping tens of thousands of tons of material 'a few feet' surely will do nothing.
I don't know why you bother ANOK. You couldn't answer my question about tension and so you evaded it. You couldn't appreciate that scientific papers disagree with you so you ignored them.