9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

I agree with the theory that the walls are blown outwards as the towers collapse, you can see it quite plainly in the Videos, however i don't agree that it was done with explosives, i find it hard to believe that 3 working skyscrapers could be rigged for demolition without anyone noticing. So in my mind that leaves only one explanation for how the floors below the falling tower are blown out of the way, and that is air pressure. Is it possible that the floors falling cause a sudden build up of air pressure in the floor/s below, enough to blow out the glass and weaken the walls enough to allow that floor to be compressed and thus compressing the air in the floor below that one? Of course this idea doesn't sit well with me either because it still doesn't really explain building 7, and i still think that there would have been a deceleration as the floors collapsed.

The argument over whether this guys experiments prove anything is null and void, the real story here is that the so called scientific data that NIST say they used to create a workable nigh free fall like seen is still classified and to be honest it will remain so because it would show that their proof was NOT based upon science or reality...

The nearest this guy got was to remote detonate it....Anyone can do a computer animation but if you choose to hide the supposed science behind it then all you have is a fancy computer animation..

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: bastupungen

I think you are taking the events, through pictures, out of context.
There were a lot of people there that day.
None of them said the burnt cars were out of the norm.

With out knowing the exact time and location the picture was taken you have no basis to claim it was odd.
Did the paper just blow under the car a second before the picture was taken?

All of these conspiracy claims are coming from people who were not there, on site that day.

Quite the contrary there are firefighter and police reports from that day that report cars "self-conbusting" as the firefighters and police report it. It's just, nothing they can do or think about it because.. They got # to do.

The damage reported, observed and recorded show quite clearly that damage done to the cars, especially around the NE(?) parking lot, was weird. To me, the damage done to the cars trollies and trucks does not seem like a normal fire, for many reasons, some of them being the amount of destruction and almost missing materials, like some missing the engine, also unnatural fast rusting of steel components, levitation and other things.

originally posted by: seanridesajones
I agree with the theory that the walls are blown outwards as the towers collapse, you can see it quite plainly in the Videos, however i don't agree that it was done with explosives, i find it hard to believe that 3 working skyscrapers could be rigged for demolition without anyone noticing.

But then again its hard to believe that 2 buildings reinforced to survive a plane strike would not only crumble like flower but all in minutes rather than hours as other not so reinforced building never did even after hours of fire, and there's the alarming addition of a building barely on fire falling down in EXACTLY the same way, 3 buildings in one day, all the same..

If I was a betting man those would be bloody long odds....Not trying to rip any ones theory but just saying as improbable as what you yourself said, the other side is also just as if not more improbable...

Lord you truthers.

You guys are partially correct. There was a conspiracy regarding the World Trade Centers. Only it was not 911.
It was the original construction.

These building were built by construction companies from NYC.
Who runs those?
Let me clue you in, they are Italian.......
What does that mean?
They are Union jobs.
What does that mean?
Corners get cut and every shortcut method in process and materials is taken to ensure that Jimmy, Knuckles and Bobby G get a payment on Friday to take to the club.

It is well within the possibility that the fire retardant coatings were not applied in sufficient quantities, or were not fire retardant at all. That the concrete used was not rated at the correctly specified curing times or load capacity. That the steel used was not the correct steel, an so on and so forth.

These towers were built with "good enough" construction. That means regardless of how they were designed they were only good enough to keep standing provided everything stayed as it was originally intended. Once the outer load bearing shell was compromised there was no chance they were going to stay standing.

So if that were the case then yes there might indeed be some covering up of that evidence and that information, because if that ever saw the light of day then the families would have every right to sue the existence out of the owners and the construction companies. If the shoddy construction was the cause of the complete collapse then they were negligent in the death of the family members.

a reply to: Mclaneinc

You seem like a sane fella, have you looked into the work of Dr. Judy Wood?

a reply to: Mclaneinc

I've not heard an explanation that sits well with me to be honest, mine included, but the only other one i have is a bit sci-fi (scalar weapons or similar?) I'm not going there.

It's good that people are still discussing this though, if enough ideas get thrown into the hat maybe an answer will be reached. Lets hope.

originally posted by: seanridesajones
a reply to: Mclaneinc

I've not heard an explanation that sits well with me to be honest, mine included, but the only other one i have is a bit sci-fi (scalar weapons or similar?) I'm not going there.

It's good that people are still discussing this though, if enough ideas get thrown into the hat maybe an answer will be reached. Lets hope.

Exactly....

Paul...

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: Mclaneinc

You seem like a sane fella, have you looked into the work of Dr. Judy Wood?

Not that I know of, will do tho thanks..

Paul..

originally posted by: Misterlondon
To be honest I do lean to the conspiracy idea of 9/11
But the guys experiments don't prove s..t!

REALLY?

You a) clearly didn't watch or pay attention to the video and/or b) are lacking in knowledge of the scientific method and/ or physics, which may or may not be your fault. Not everyone on this planet gets the same quality of education.

At the end of the day though, this guy actually provided REAL tests and experiments which completely contradicted a COMPUTER model of what POSSIBLY happened, like that of the gov't's official story. It would be absolutely insane to ignore this man's experiments. Do you expect him to build replicas of the Twin Towers and bring them down with a plane?! I think he did a great job, at the very least, expanding on how much the OS was BS.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc
falling down in EXACTLY the same way,

Again, how do you think they should have fallen down? What other way is their for buildings that size and construction to fall down?

a reply to: hellobruce


They DON'T fall down, that is the entire point bruce.

a reply to: Dragoon01

Ya of course, now I get it, it exploded into Trillions of pieces and created a dust cloud larger than the Hiroshima A-Bomb because of shoddy welding.

a reply to: Dragoon01

So Al Pachino did it!?!?!?

He paid the port authority to bury the evidence, paid the 9/11 commision to not investigate, dodged a million man hours of FBI investigation and gave NIST a deal they couldnt refuse?!?!?

Holy cow!!! Does Joe Pesci know about this?

a reply to: yesyesyes

A bit off topic, but you mentioned the post 9/11 changes that occurred - war, surveillance, greed. I'd love to know what businesses and government agencies moved into the trade towers 5 years before the event. Because other important things were buried in the debris that day (I can cite if needed); my point is by learning who moved in recently maybe there's a clue there.

Others have probably taken this angle, but 15 years later we're no closer to assigning blame based on evidence (edit: make that universal, agreeable evidence). Off topic, I know, just haven't seen a quality 9/11 thread in while.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

any number of SAD opserators ,over time ,maybe 1 unit however large ,in a compartmentalized agency.
Infiltrate maintainance ,certain financial types moving the money into insurance ahead of time. Bush Sr. is a former nasty director of spooks.

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: Mclaneinc

You seem like a sane fella, have you looked into the work of Dr. Judy Wood?

Hahahahaha haha. Oh my aching sides.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: Mclaneinc

You seem like a sane fella, have you looked into the work of Dr. Judy Wood?

Not that I know of, will do tho thanks..

Paul..

You will chuckle your head off. She's hilarious.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc

originally posted by: seanridesajones
I agree with the theory that the walls are blown outwards as the towers collapse, you can see it quite plainly in the Videos, however i don't agree that it was done with explosives, i find it hard to believe that 3 working skyscrapers could be rigged for demolition without anyone noticing.

But then again its hard to believe that 2 buildings reinforced to survive a plane strike would not only crumble like flower but all in minutes rather than hours as other not so reinforced building never did even after hours of fire, and there's the alarming addition of a building barely on fire falling down in EXACTLY the same way, 3 buildings in one day, all the same..

If I was a betting man those would be bloody long odds....Not trying to rip any ones theory but just saying as improbable as what you yourself said, the other side is also just as if not more improbable...

Barely on fire? Let's tr fundamentals of material science 1. Steel loses 50% of its strength in the first 400 degrees of a fire, 90% by 800 degrees. Matches can burn at that temp. All conspiracy ignore the addition of an 80 ton aircraft travelling at 500m ph impacting with the steel structure. So we have damage, removed fire proofing, and fire. Yeah. The top is gonna move. Also. They were designed to withstand a plane strike. A much smaller one and at much lower speed. But regardless. We don't know how they were designed to survive. Was the factor of safety greatly increased? Even the engineers who did the work weren't able to say.

Wtc 7. Fires and considerable damage. Read the statements from witnesses and look at the pictures. Fire and damage. Also. It didn't collapse in the same way as 1 and 2.

If your only possible explanation enters the realm of Sci fi then you've misread or misunderstood the evidence and data.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: scottyirnbru

any number of SAD opserators ,over time ,maybe 1 unit however large ,in a compartmentalized agency.
Infiltrate maintainance ,certain financial types moving the money into insurance ahead of time. Bush Sr. is a former nasty director of spooks.

That there is guesswork attached to a factual statement thus designed to look plausible. You're trying to lay out the possibility that it was all an inside job. Again. Why? We were robbed as citizens in 2008 when we gave all our money to the banks. It didn't even need an actual crisis. It was just they asked.