9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

www.youtube.com...

Why can't the experts demonstrate the force behind the motion?

With all the different demonstrations with different models, "only demolition" is the only thing that proves scientifically what we all witnessed to what happen to the WTC on 911.

Please take the time and watch the video.

So ATSer's what is your opinion to this demonstration?

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

a reply to: Misterlondon
Jeezuz the laws of physics will tell you the government bull dooey is not even remotely possible..........
Done deal...there was plenty of inside knowledge and help to pull off such a caper....
Think of the put options, the missing gold, the Odigo warnings to Israelis, the missing wreckage at the Pentagon....,
The free fall speed of the towers and building seven.....
Its all a crock of crap they peddled.....

a reply to: Informer1958

You would think there would be enough structural engineers in the world who are qualified to do the science to form a general consensus on what happened and for everyone to agree on it because the science is sound and laws of physics cannot be broken (at least on this planet)

a reply to: Informer1958

It's like painting an apple orange and wondering why it doesn't taste like orange. What about the mass and the forces after that?

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!

I think they prove that the force pressing down does not warrant the destruction below, even when you lower building standards to substandard building code.

It is a good example and demonstration that the official investigators fudged the data and/or models they used to explain what we saw that day.

There is no doubt to me that 9/11 was used a catalyst for war, surveillance and an expanse of certain government powers, especially the powers of the government we are not privy too AKA CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS/ETC/ETC


Not to mention that the administration's cabinet was chock full of business people who won many of the contracts and business ventures that benefited by 9/11 and IRAQ and the patriot act and the TSA and on and on and on

a reply to: Misterlondon

I agree, they don't prove anything, but neither did any other explanation that I am aware of. His rings true, more likely than the others. Therefore, shouldn't it be considered?

After multiple experiments, this one, 11 minutes in, had me instinctively give a little laugh:

I lit it, and I ran.

But I quickly sobered up when he added

While not perfect, it looked like I was starting to replicate the motion we observed with the Twin Towers. I tried various fuse lengths, aligning them in upper floors, trying to mimic the Towers' motion. The problem was, I was using basic fuse and fire crackers, which are very difficult to time and control. But if I had wireless remote controlled detonators, I think I could replicate the motion they saw.

Any typos or misspellings are mine, as the editors don't work in quote mode.

I do wonder, though, if he got "this" close, why stop there? He seemed like someone who could have taken it that next step.

Have you found an explanation that satisfies you and can you enlighten me, sorry, us with it? I still wonder about this.

Good post.

a reply to: Informer1958
His experiments were a step in the right direction, it still doesn't take into account why the massive core columns came down. Thanks for posting this.

This is a brilliant experiment showing how forces react. While not perfect (it never will be) it was well explained and more believable then the pancake or pile driver theory.

I found it interesting that the only way he could get the top to fall straight down was to guide it on rails. Also when he lit the structure at the top simulating the origin of the fire/plane hit it didn't cause the types of effects we saw on that day.

The walls were made of paper, it is hard to imagine for me at least that steel structure below the explosion with no fire effecting it, which has been engineered to hold the weight of the structure above it, could crumple and allow for almost resistance free acceleration of structure above.

a reply to: Informer1958

I believe it was an inside job and nobody will convince me otherwise.

Thanks for sharing the video.

Now I'm going to hide from this thread before the truthers find me and hang me out to dry.

a reply to: Informer1958

I am glad that even simplistic videos like this are still making the rounds!

The fact that so many people willingly accepted the mythic official story of 9/11 as truth and then went on to justify the proceeding 15 years of war and hell that we have allowed our leaders to unleash upon the innocent people of the middle east has always disturbed. All based upon a fairy tale.

When they first tried spreading their nonsense about pancakes, I had no other response than to laugh at how stupid they believed the public to be.

The fact that they have their "scientific" experts who verify this absurdity and people believe and defend it, is something that has caused massive distrust in my world to the "scientific" authorities in general.

Tell me more about how building #7 fell into itself!

a reply to: Informer1958

The evidence itself is part of the conspiracy. Think about how you felt the day it happened. How everything is viewed now is considerably different than how it was viewed then. Many years have transpired since and much has been made of specific facts now in evidence that were not looked at then. How many of you thought when it was happening that physics were important? The whole fiasco was designed to elicit the emotional response that was felt that day and to procure majority opinions that would allow for quick retaliatory reaction.

The entire world was tricked into this not just America. Everywhere you go today is governed by the same fear tactics, but this is not the first time emotional responses played a role in war. What is completely different is the advent of social media and the internet. This allows everyone with an opinion to create blogs, websites and videos to join in whereas in days gone by this was not possible without formally protesting (Vietnam and Korea).

Even ATS was probably created because of 9/11 along with 100's of other sites dedicated to conspiracies. The sad truth about this and many other severe situations is that no matter what the truth is we will never be allowed to know it. For every fact presented there is another fact that disputes what the other fact suggest.

For me, common sense prevails and regardless of what the facts are the official story that was initially reported the day and weeks following 9/11 do not ring true to me, that doesn't change the fact that something tragic happened, just calls into question the repercussions. Many of the younger generation are only able to see the results of the actions, but this is no different than my generation reflecting on the effects and facts of Kennedy assassinations, MLK, WW2, Pearl Harbor,etc.

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?

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!

First note on the OP video: He built his model to test, he made an accurate scaling down of the WTC floor system, he dropped a weight on them for his experiment. He said nothing about the walls or the support beams. The vertical building structure of the WTC was nothing like the wood sides of his experiment rig, which was made of wood and was not made to model anything in the actual WTC. Also, he doesn't say whether the weight he dropped was representative of the weight of the entire upper portion of either building that was falling down upon the lower floors during the real collapse.

The end of the video was a bit more compelling, but I still think he needs to be a lot more rigorous about the specs of his walls and supports if he wants his model to be representative. The firecracker experiment was definitely interesting.

a reply to: Discotech

They'd have to agree on the physical nature of the buildings. Did the cores contain reinforced concrete infill panels? When I asked Gage in London he said no, just like all engineering and university websites. Then I pointed out the insurance money was paid for a building in which, 'The core comprises steel beams and columns with reinforced concrete infill panels'. His eyes lit up and he reached for my hand and shook it enthusiastically.

The method of construction was designed to conceal the addition of the infill panels before the core walls were clad with drywall. Every question is answered by the existence of these panels with explosives concealed inside.

Check the photographs and you'll see the panels and rows of panels blowing out, visible as striations in the dust cloud.

There are many ways to calculate roughly what gravity would do. The average particle size of the debris produced in such a short space of time indicates massive input of energy beyond gravity. The debris is still there on the Fresh Kills landfill, waiting for analysis, with suitable respect for the 1,000 plus missing whose remains are said to be in the finest of the graded debris. First this fine debris was to be moved to a respectful grave site. Then it was suddenly bulldozed over the rest of the sorted debris and buried.

Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Any video that makes people look for themselves is good.

i think if he rebuilt a wtc exactly the way it was in real life where it weighed thousands of tons, and it fall the same way when being hit by an airplane with jet fuel, then i would be interested in his experiment. i dont buy that a 5 ft model made out of wood has the same weight as the 38k tons or whatever it was that fell in on itself. im not buying this model experiment at all.

a reply to: Discotech

I submit that there IS a consensus. As a layman, common sense must agree with the observations and comments of Peter Jennings and Dan Rather. I had the same thoughts as they, that "Gee, that looked like a controlled demolition".

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

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.

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?