9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

I was just asking the question.
Office/Diesel fuel fire could not have brought down WTC7, just saying...

yes it could have. if one floor is weakened by heat, the steel loses structural integrity and wtc7 falls like the twin towers did. Jet fuel doesnt have to melt steel, its just has to weaken it. so if one floor collapses, the dynamic load above crushes the rest of the floors that weren't built to support all that force. i explained this a few pages back. its pretty much simple physics,

a reply to: residentofearth

Pictures of the plane debris have been shown go look.

a reply to: vjr1113

Even with silly videos included, sophistry is still sophistry.

a reply to: Salander

so even with evidence, you choose to believe what you want to believe?

faith

originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: wmd_2008



So how You explain that there was no debris of plane in Pentagon but the investigators found a passport (at WTC, ground Zero) which they claim was one of the attackers. So plane disappeared (Ptgn) and the piece of paper doesnt (NY, WTC)?

The damage of Ptgn looks like prepared job. Nothing there was random.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

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.

You are not quite inteligent, right? If You think I thought Pentagon is 1000ft

Just because you don't want to accept the evidence doesn't mean it isn't real.

You were talking about the pentagon. Made a statement about 1000ft. Tell me why I wouldn't make that assumption? You misspelled the word intelligent. Oh the irony.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: scottyirnbru

You can bet your bottom dollar that with all the video cameras facing outward on the Pentagon, probably dozens, if UA77 had flown across that lawn as they said it did, there would be footage of it. Ample footage, considering all the cameras.

Yet all they choose to show is 4 or 5 frames from a parking lot camera. Don't you know when your being fooled?

The parking lot camera shows an aircraft of some sort, but it is clearly far too small to be a 757.

If they had solid proof to corroborate their story, they would have presented it long ago. The story is bogus.

How is it 'clearly' too small to be a 757?

Again. If you want this to be a conspiracy you need to explain the whole entire lot. So that's 4 missing planes. 3000 dead people. Numerous damaged and destroyed buildings. And thousands of hours of videos and millions of pictures taken there and then.
If it's a conspiracy start with the who. Who did it? Then how many of them were involved. Then why did they do it. Then how did the carry it out.

The conspiracy idea is so flimsy. The slightest bit of rational thought would tell you that it is so fantastically unlikely as to be negligible.

Yet again, even in this thread ignorance appears about materials and materials science. Heat is a terrible thing for metal. 50% of its strength in 400 degrees. Unless your factor of safety is 2 then that building is at very real risk of collapse. Now add damage. 80 tons at 500mph. Remove and strip columns and beams. Apply the heat now.

It's ignorance. And at times its almost wilful ignorance. This is the materials textbook that I used.

bookshop.blackwell.co.uk...

Go read that. Then read Judy Wood and her waffle.

a reply to: ParasuvO


It was not going 500 mph.
If you have ever driven by a major airport its not very difficult to watch the planes land and drive.
Commercial aircraft are big and they are rather noticeable when they are doing things they are not supposed to be doing.
How freaking big do you think this "conspiracy" would have to be to get every person driving on the highways near the Pentagon to unsee a missile and see a passenger jet?
If a missile or drone was what hit the Pentagon someone would have broken the silence about it by now. No one has because they all saw a passenger jet flying at a very low altitude.

a reply to: ParasuvO


I will tell you something and you can believe it or not.
Airplanes are very fragile.
As long as they are structurally sound its all good and they appear to be like your car.
The materials they are made out of however are very light weight.
I do Search and Rescue. We specifically do SAR for aircraft.
We have seen private aircraft that crash into trees shred like paper and when the fire goes out there is nothing above the size of a quarter left outside of the engine blocks.
This is not the same thing as a car accident.
The reason you do not see a huge debris field is because there was very little debris left to see. It was small pieces scattered all over the inside of the building.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

No thats not what I am saying at all.
You obviously have taken offense to me casting dispersion's on the mob. Maybe you are Italian or maybe you are from NY and in construction.
Whatever.
You are letting your emotional connection to something get in the way of actually reading the words I have posted.
I have offered a more plausible explanation for the so called "conspiracy" of the buildings collapsing and the lack of desire to understand why they collapsed as they did. It is much more likely that the construction methods were substandard and that over the years the building owners (and most likely the city itself) became aware of this substandard construction. This is more than enough reason for the owners and the city to be interested in keeping the feds from investigating to much into the building itself. We all saw the planes crash into the buildings. There was no doubt that this was a terrorist act, so why muddy the waters and try to point some blame at the building and the city? the Feds would play along with that.

Please understand I am personal friends with a former federal prosecutor from NYC. He was there and working with the Lead prosecutor on Mob cases at the time of 9-11. He lost a cousin in the towers and knows a little bit about the businesses the mob were involved in.

Now why is it that you insist that I am too influenced by TV and Movies, and that my theory somehow makes no sense?
It is consistent with government behavior. It is consistent with the desire of business owners to mitigate risk. It is consistent with construction practices in NYC.


You are supporting a theory that insists that a huge amount of explosives and some means of controlling their detonation were somehow secretly transported within the WTC. Planted, rigged and wired, right under the noses of the multiple thousands of people who work there. Commercial airlines were then hijacked. All the passengers killed and the planes remotely flown into the buildings. A short amount of time is then spent to allow for NYPD and NYFD to send in significant numbers of officers and firemen and then those secretly hid explosives were set off in a carefully timed series of explosions that would not topple the buildings over into the area around it, but bring them down right into their footprint.

SURE clearly that idea is much more logical and likely.....

The problem with the self-collapsing structure with a local failure and the rest intact is that it does not make sense. There are videos of demolitions that fail even when you blow it up at the bottom level. The collapse is arrested in that case. That also implies a top-down demolition wouldn't work (aka Verinage although that starts in the middle)

Cole's experiments are even in favour of a collapse because he uses a hard body to crush the rest. It even has a thresshold energy and momentum in that case. In a fire weakening scenario there is even no velocity. A story gives way very slowly and it will slowly drop on the the next one. This is far from what we observe from the Sauret video for example. It's the chicken and egg. You first need speed in order to continue (otherwise the underlying structure will absorb the energy) but you can only get speed if the underlying structure's resistance cannot hold the top section due to the velocity it has obtained. This is no avalanche or a structure of pancakes within a fixed frame. It is a structure in which everything gives way. The Sauret video. It shifts into each other. No funneling, no pancaking. Simply a demolition caused by explosives. It explains everything of this far fetched epicycle theory.

a reply to: drommelsboef

You may have missed this post by me to another member a comment on Cole's models and pancake collapse.

Well consider this if people make scale models do they not do it ACCURATELY ?

If you made a scale model on one of the Towers at 1/100th of life size it would be

Just over 13.5 feet high
Floors would be just over 2 ft square
The FLOOR SLABS would be just over 1mm thick !!!!!!
The supports holding the floor trusses would be about 0.2 mm thick.
The materials used would be similar to the real thing.

Now can even YOU see the flaws of his model !!!!

As for his claim that pancake collapse cant happen.



During construction of the above building the floor slab at the top had a support failure the collapse stopped at the ground.

The main problem with the Towers was the fact that floors could fall internally.


The FLOORS of the Towers could fall internally so what impact could just ONE 900 ton floor slab dropping 12 foot cause

You should also take this into consideration regarding models.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

I was just asking the question.
Office/Diesel fuel fire could not have brought down WTC7, just saying...

yes it could have. if one floor is weakened by heat, the steel loses structural integrity and wtc7 falls like the twin towers did. Jet fuel doesnt have to melt steel, its just has to weaken it. so if one floor collapses, the dynamic load above crushes the rest of the floors that weren't built to support all that force. i explained this a few pages back. its pretty much simple physics,

Simple physics? No, it's basic metallurgy.

I will form my opinion based on my experience with materials and you can form yours based on weird YouTube videos.

You say if one floor got weakened by heat it could collapse. An entire floor was not on fire. How would it be possible that an office fire generated so much heat that it had a detrimental effect on the base material of 83 columns throughout the entire building?

If true, WTC7 would be the first ever recorded case of a high-rise collapsing due to fire. Ever.

a reply to: angryhulk

Your average house fire can reach 1000C at 600c steel has 50% of it's strength then you have structural damage to consider as well.

WTC7 had structural damage as well !!!!

a reply to: drommelsboef

It explains everything of this far fetched epicycle theory.

Like the post above states it doesn't explain the planes full of people.
The tons of explosives.
The total silence of all the people involved with the planning, execution, and clean up.

All parts of this conspiracy are just mini theories.
None of them can explain the totality of 911.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: angryhulk

Your average house fire can reach 1000C at 600c steel has 50% of it's strength then you have structural damage to consider as well.

WTC7 had structural damage as well !!!!

Quick google search there was it? Think you mean fahrenheit as the average house fire can reach 600c.

What grade of steel are you talking about? A36? A182? A350? A105?

Ah yes, you're right some falling debris hut it and made a hole.

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: angryhulk

Your average house fire can reach 1000C at 600c steel has 50% of it's strength then you have structural damage to consider as well.

WTC7 had structural damage as well !!!!

Quick google search there was it? Think you mean fahrenheit as the average house fire can reach 600c.

What grade of steel are you talking about? A36? A182? A350? A105?

Ah yes, you're right some falling debris hut it and made a hole.

I raise YOU THIS

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: angryhulk

Your average house fire can reach 1000C at 600c steel has 50% of it's strength then you have structural damage to consider as well.

WTC7 had structural damage as well !!!!

Quick google search there was it? Think you mean fahrenheit as the average house fire can reach 600c.

What grade of steel are you talking about? A36? A182? A350? A105?

Ah yes, you're right some falling debris hut it and made a hole.

I raise YOU THIS

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C.

Source or it never happened.

I'll use this source

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

I was just asking the question.
Office/Diesel fuel fire could not have brought down WTC7, just saying...

yes it could have. if one floor is weakened by heat, the steel loses structural integrity and wtc7 falls like the twin towers did. Jet fuel doesnt have to melt steel, its just has to weaken it. so if one floor collapses, the dynamic load above crushes the rest of the floors that weren't built to support all that force. i explained this a few pages back. its pretty much simple physics,

Simple physics? No, it's basic metallurgy.

I will form my opinion based on my experience with materials and you can form yours based on weird YouTube videos.

You say if one floor got weakened by heat it could collapse. An entire floor was not on fire. How would it be possible that an office fire generated so much heat that it had a detrimental effect on the base material of 83 columns throughout the entire building?

If true, WTC7 would be the first ever recorded case of a high-rise collapsing due to fire. Ever.

everything is based on physics, metallurgy is part of physics.

wtc7 burned for quite a while



yea weird youtube vids showing facts. disregard evidence and believe what you want. it doesnt matter if it was the first or the last, whether it happened or not is the question.

"Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see."
Source

" but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Source

we have eye witnesses that say wtc7 was looking like it was unstable and it was going to collapse. so i can form my opinion on evidence, physics, expert eyewitnesses, or just take your word for it.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: angryhulk

You think debris brought down WTC7?

No one has ever said that debris brought down WTC 7.
The un fought fire that resulted from the debris strike brought down WTC 7.

When it comes down to it fire is what brought down 1 & 2 as well.

I was just asking the question.
Office/Diesel fuel fire could not have brought down WTC7, just saying...

yes it could have. if one floor is weakened by heat, the steel loses structural integrity and wtc7 falls like the twin towers did. Jet fuel doesnt have to melt steel, its just has to weaken it. so if one floor collapses, the dynamic load above crushes the rest of the floors that weren't built to support all that force. i explained this a few pages back. its pretty much simple physics,

Simple physics? No, it's basic metallurgy.

I will form my opinion based on my experience with materials and you can form yours based on weird YouTube videos.

You say if one floor got weakened by heat it could collapse. An entire floor was not on fire. How would it be possible that an office fire generated so much heat that it had a detrimental effect on the base material of 83 columns throughout the entire building?

If true, WTC7 would be the first ever recorded case of a high-rise collapsing due to fire. Ever.

everything is based on physics, metallurgy is part of physics.

wtc7 burned for quite a while

yea weird youtube vids showing facts. disregard evidence and believe what you want. it doesnt matter if it was the first or the last, whether it happened or not is the question.

"Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see."
Source

" but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
Source

we have eye witnesses that say wtc7 was looking like it was unstable and it was going to collapse. so i can form my opinion on evidence, physics, expert eyewitnesses, or just take your word for it.

You're providing testimonies as sources?

2,471 qualified architects and engineers have signed a petition to better understand the truth of 9/11, or I could just take your word for it Mr. Vjr1113 of ATS, you and your eye witnesses.

"Everything is based on physics, metallurgy is part of physics" - Yeah, thanks for clearing that up...

a reply to: vjr1113

Oh by the way, the video you describe as presenting 'facts', I didn't know the metal inside WTC 7 was heated inside a furnace and pulled against an anvil prior to collapse.

Stupid video.