9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

a reply to: bastupungen

Burned out vehicles ....

Look at this video from WCBS (Channel 2 - NY)

www.youtube.com...

Pay attention at 3:20 to about 4:00

Notice burning paper/debris on ground ....??

Notice burned out vehicles...?? How close there are parked..?? Blown out windows..??

Modern cars are fairly easy to ignite, lots of combustible plastic trim

Smash a window and allow burning embers in, its even easier

The tight line of vehicles means once vehicle is onfire will set adjacent vehicles on fire . Seen it enough times
in parking lot. Set one car on fire and soon all adjacent vehicles are burning

Not long ago had car park over dried leaves in apartment parking lot - heat from catalytic converter ignited leaves
which in turn set car on fire, Burning car set 3 others on fire .

Thats 4 cars destroyed from pile of leaves!!

Have plenty of ignition sources from burning/blowing paper Set one on fire - pretty soon entire street is going.

originally posted by: residentofearth

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: hellobruce

The front could just flew away because of strong and massive shockwave, but... the tree courious me a lot!
The video is very usefull for an amateurs of 9/11 and IMO is very good

Or perhaps a fire brigade adding water to the situation?

You mean they were trying to rescue the tree?

Or far more plausibly create and access or egress with some safety?

a reply to: residentofearth

What strong and masive shockwave are you talking about, there are no reports of a massive shockwave that would have ripped people apart when touched by it.

You're being very selective about your datapoints, try to look at it holistically and not make assumptions.

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: residentofearth

What strong and masive shockwave are you talking about, there are no reports of a massive shockwave that would have ripped people apart when touched by it.

You're being very selective about your datapoints, try to look at it holistically and not make assumptions.

You make assumptions based on a photograph. A single snapshot at a moment in time. Is that different?

I just wanted to add it is funny he talks about experiments and recreating same results but uses a completely different structure and force to prove it is not the same.

I'm not saying the theories he "disproves" are right though.

a reply to: bastupungen

How does fires explain the missing front of that one car, and several others?

Are you serious ?
They have been making car fronts/backs from plastic and rubber for decades.
Why is this a mystery ?

a reply to: samkent

I guess the engine block and hood are made of plastic as well?

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Not one photograph, you asked for one example, I gave you one.. now go and find 1000 others for yourself. I'm not your lmgtfy.com service.

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: samkent

I guess the engine block and hood are made of plastic as well?

What makes you claim the engine block is missing?

I never asked for 1000s of images. You picked one image and said that was proof. It isn't proof. It doesn't show what you think. In my uneducated opinion it shows that some cars were on fire and were presenting a hazard. It is further my uneducated opinion that the fire brigade decided that this was not an acceptable turn of events and as such applied water. Thus the cars look half burned. Also. That single picture has an arrow pointing to a tree which looks to be about 15 metres away. A far better use of that arrow would have been to the back half of the police car on the right hand side. It still would have been wrong but at least it would have been less wrong.

I looked at a picture and made an assumption about something which is entirely plausible and realistic. You looked at a picture and invented a whole new weapon system which is implausible and unrealistic.

Again. Is that the front or the back of the car? Was it made from metal or plastic or even vinyl stretched over a frame or glass?

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: samkent

I guess the engine block and hood are made of plastic as well?

Apparently you have never seen of firemen put out engine fires.
First they use a long metal pry bar/hook to remove the hood.
Not just open it but remove it in most cases.

Now back to your picture.
Explain how your 'dew' weapon missed to postal truck across the street but nailed the cars behind it?

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: residentofearth

What strong and masive shockwave are you talking about, there are no reports of a massive shockwave that would have ripped people apart when touched by it.

You're being very selective about your datapoints, try to look at it holistically and not make assumptions.

You should quote my post because I clearly wrote that IT COULD BE a massive shockwave.

For me, whole gov. theory was failed after I the pictures from the Pentagon.
One plain cause 1000ft high building to collapse and does only a small whole in the Pnt. Pleaaase..

The walls are un-touched.

originally posted by: residentofearth

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: residentofearth

What strong and masive shockwave are you talking about, there are no reports of a massive shockwave that would have ripped people apart when touched by it.

You're being very selective about your datapoints, try to look at it holistically and not make assumptions.

You should quote my post because I clearly wrote that IT COULD BE a massive shockwave.

For me, whole gov. theory was failed after I the pictures from the Pentagon.
One plain cause 1000ft high building to collapse and does only a small whole in the Pnt. Pleaaase..

The walls are un-touched.

That's not 1000ft high.

a reply to: Informer1958


I think Mr Cole needs a refresher on how scale models WORK & building design.



youtu.be...


One thing posting on these threads for a while now has shown is that the vast majority of members DON'T have the experience or KNOWLEDGE to comment on the collapse their grasp of the science and construction is POOR and all they seem to be good at is making assumptions based on their limited knowledge

a reply to: wmd_2008

I think Mr Cole needs a refresher on how scale models WORK & building design.

That is your opinion.

Care to demonstrate scientifically how Mr Cole examples are all wrong?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wmd_2008

I think Mr Cole needs a refresher on how scale models WORK & building design.

That is your opinion.

Care to demonstrate scientifically how Mr Cole examples are all wrong?

For starters no need for science yet though. His pancake model neglects to take into account that the floors in a building are not one big flat piece of mass but build up by components. The components that held up the floors did collapse too but in his model they didn't. The construction of the wtc was an innercore and structural facades (you know the parts of the building that carry the total weight of the building so that the floors can be wide and open which is ideal for an office) which his model neglected. And the mass that fell fell spread over the total area of the floors which his model neglected.

For someone talking about experiments and results need to be able to be recreated AND on top of that that slight changes in variables can have different outcomes.... Well he didn't have slight variations, he just uses a completely different model

a reply to: Dumbass

Mr Cole was only giving an analogy and showing different demonstrations to simplify for people who don't understand the science behind the WTC demise.

I thought it was a good example.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Dumbass

Mr Cole was only giving an analogy and showing different demonstrations to simplify for people who don't understand the science behind the WTC demise.

I thought it was a good example.

Although he is trying he is in that way setting people who don't understand the science of construction on the wrong foot. If he wants to educate people he should either explain it all or make it explicitly clear it is not the same. Nothing worse then a dumbass that uses theories because he thinks he is educated but doesn't understand the theories he learned are just basic principles and are not complete or sufficient to explain the situation. It will only create more fog in unraveling what actually happened.

a reply to: residentofearth

For me, whole gov. theory was failed after I the pictures from the Pentagon.
One plain cause 1000ft high building to collapse and does only a small whole in the Pnt. Pleaaase..

Apples and Oranges........

Pentagon was 5 story building, WTC was 110 story

Pentagon is heavy steel and masonry construction . The floors are steel reinforced concrete supported by concrete
columns. The exterior walls are brick with a facade of cut limestone on the exterior E Ring wall

WTC was mostly "engineered" steel - steel trusses with very little concrete. Floors are 4 inch tick lightweight concrete
There are support columns in the core area, but not supports outside of the core

If want to make a comparison use SIMILAR objects...!

originally posted by: residentofearth
One plain cause 1000ft high building to collapse and does only a small whole in the Pnt.

So you think the same one "plain" hit the Pentagon and the WTC!