9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

a reply to: vjr1113 Enjoyed the video, the core column breakup and the molten steel observed weeks later in the pile indicate there was more to it than a kerosene fire. Take a 500,000 ton building swing it at 490 mph into a stationary 100 ton jet. Just like a VW hitting a beer can. What was the question?

a reply to: yesyesyes

Again the point is, there was not enough force pressing down to make the lower undamaged floors collapse.

The lower floors that were not hit or on fire held that weight up for decades, so why would they fail to continue to hold up even less weight?

You are aware of the difference between static load and dynamic loads....?

Can easily demonstrate - take heavy weight, place on top of foot. Can rest there indefinately

Now take same weight , lift it several feet, then release. Notice the difference...??

Same thing with floors. Once floor support collapsed the mass above will fall until encounters resistance

Even a fall of several feet will create an enormous force which will overload what is below it.

originally posted by: firerescue
You are aware of the difference between static load and dynamic loads....?

Can easily demonstrate - take heavy weight, place on top of foot. Can rest there indefinately

Now take same weight , lift it several feet, then release. Notice the difference...??

Same thing with floors. Once floor support collapsed the mass above will fall until encounters resistance

Even a fall of several feet will create an enormous force which will overload what is below it.

Thank you, you beat me to it!!! this thought process and argument drives me nuts! Static force is not equal to Dynamic force, your explanation is great!

a reply to: PsychicCroMag

Take a 500,000 ton building swing it at 490 mph into a stationary 100 ton jet.

Ahhh but it wasn't an entire 500,000 ton building.
It was a small section of steel(s).

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

But the organization Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth has over 2000 signatories, most of whom are architects and engineers. IMO, that is consensus.

Clearly you have not read the bio's of those signatories.
Most do not have the degree's or experience to back up any claims of CD.

I would hazard a guess that these engineers and architects have more experience than you do in such matters

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: yesyesyes

Again the point is, there was not enough force pressing down to make the lower undamaged floors collapse.

The lower floors that were not hit or on fire held that weight up for decades, so why would they fail to continue to hold up even less weight?

You are aware of the difference between static load and dynamic loads....?

Can easily demonstrate - take heavy weight, place on top of foot. Can rest there indefinately

Now take same weight , lift it several feet, then release. Notice the difference...??

Same thing with floors. Once floor support collapsed the mass above will fall until encounters resistance

Even a fall of several feet will create an enormous force which will overload what is below it.

Ok... That does make sense.

I did not need the mans video to convince me of thing. A 47 story building collapsing in the same manner as the other 2 buildings that were hit by airplanes is enough for me. Watch it, and tell about the LOAD you see

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: samkent
It's almost been an entire generation since 911.
With all these new engineers with no skin in the game why can't you get any of them to say the buildings could not have fallen from planes and fire?

Because then they would be telling lies!

Au contraire, There are currently more than 2,468 highly credentialed Architects and Engineers who have signed a petition to open a new investigation into the WTC Bldg. 1, 2, & 7 collapses. They are quite clearly not buying the plane and fire explanation.

www.ae911truth.org...

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Just guess work and scientific ignorance. It's not a scalable model. It doesn't accurately reflect anything.

Yet again. If you are gonna claim conspiracy you need to solve it all. Can't just point at one little bit. Every singe tiny detail needs an explanation. This is where all conspiracies fall apart.

For the doubters, could anyone of you tell me how many people need to be involved to organise and carry out this utterly massive cover up? Once you've hypothesised a number, can you explain why it's managed to stay silent?

Yeah right! Conspiracies NEVER happen. To those of us that understand physics and engineering it was painfully obvious what happened. I told my wife before the second tower fell that it was an inside job and that the buildings had been imploded in a controlled demolition. To me it's as clear as whether it's day or night outside. No question, except "who was really responsible".

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag
the molten steel observed weeks later in the pile

Do you have a valid source for the claims of molten steel?
Who tested it and showed it was steel....

originally posted by: ArJunaBug

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Just guess work and scientific ignorance. It's not a scalable model. It doesn't accurately reflect anything.

Yet again. If you are gonna claim conspiracy you need to solve it all. Can't just point at one little bit. Every singe tiny detail needs an explanation. This is where all conspiracies fall apart.

For the doubters, could anyone of you tell me how many people need to be involved to organise and carry out this utterly massive cover up? Once you've hypothesised a number, can you explain why it's managed to stay silent?

Yeah right! Conspiracies NEVER happen. To those of us that understand physics and engineering it was painfully obvious what happened. I told my wife before the second tower fell that it was an inside job and that the buildings had been imploded in a controlled demolition. To me it's as clear as whether it's day or night outside. No question, except "who was really responsible".

I did a 4 year civil engineering degree and worked in construction for 8 years. To me it's as clear as whether it's day or night outside.

Again. Another thread based on ignorance and misunderstanding. These threads all identical to the last 5000 threads. No proof. No evidence. No magic silver bullet. No spotlight shining and showing the unspeakable truth. It's March 7th, 2016. We are now cracking on for 15 years since. And yet still no globally explained (that just posted youtube video is gibberish) conspiracy. It's all just conjecture and heresay.

Someone replying to my last post stated it was all for money. Why? Look at 2008 and our rush to fund the banks. Why not just do 2008 in 2001 and not bother with an exceptionally complex plan that requires all moving parts to function perfectly or it looks pretty silly?

Let's take say the second plane. It hit slightly to the side. Imagine it clipped only it's wing. The plane plummets and crashes into the ground. A disaster for sure. However the building is mostly undamaged. What do these mythic conspirators do now? The building is wired and rigged with explosives. Do they pull the trigger?

Take building seven. Imagine the towers don't collapse. Imagine there is no damage and no fire. This building is also now wired and rigged with explosives. Do they pull the trigger?

You can surely see the small things that need to happen for it to not work exactly as required to do exactly what you need. That's too risky. So why not simplify. A fleet of flipping massive truck bombs around the streets of manhattan. 19 hijackers? 19 suicide drivers? Far easier. Far less likelihood of something going wrong. Scale Oaklahoma up with 19 curtain sider hgvs. Sorted.

a reply to: Informer1958

What I want to know is, why wasn't paper shredded that day and why didn't the car "fires", if those were actual fires, burn the same paper?

Paper, dust, and some alluminum clading that was what was remaining of the two 800 million tons of material of those towers. Where did it go?

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Read the book "Where did the towers go" and most of your questions YOU will be able to answer yourself.

a reply to: bastupungen

This is where the missing tonnage went. Drifting away on the wind as very fine particles.

a reply to: Informer1958

Unfortunately the model shown suffers from a few problems and members on here that quote newtons laws parrot fashion dont consider structural design thermal load or the damage caused by the aircraft.

Also scale models are usless and don't considet the square cube law !!!

originally posted by: yesyesyes
A 47 story building collapsing in the same manner as the other 2 buildings

Exactly how do you think it should have collapsed?

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Read the book "Where did the towers go" and most of your questions YOU will be able to answer yourself.

I can't tell if you are crediting or discrediting Wood with this statement. Do you agree with her?

a reply to: Kester

I agree, something that does not happen with thermite, thermate, nuclear-explosions or any other destructive method known by the collective consiousness.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Agree with what? The evidence? Yes, there is clearly a lack of material there on the site, not to mention all the other oddities.

Dr. Judy Wood has no theories in her book, there maybe some on the foreword but that isn't written by Dr. Wood so.

Soooo.. what do I agree with? I don't know, define your question better and I can answer it.

a reply to: ArJunaBug

Bla Bla Bla Bla.. That and lies are all that A&E is, you've failed in controlling your opposition my.. friend...

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Agree with what? The evidence? Yes, there is clearly a lack of material there on the site, not to mention all the other oddities.

Dr. Judy Wood has no theories in her book, there maybe some on the foreword but that isn't written by Dr. Wood so.

Soooo.. what do I agree with? I don't know, define your question better and I can answer it.

110 floors at 10 cm does not a big pile make.

I think you answered the question just fine. I couldn't work out if you were rightly mocking Wood or claiming she was correct. It's ok though. You've said enough.