9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

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.

Move your brain, and look at the title of thread. 9/11. WTC was 1000ft high and brought down by a plane (AA11-Boeing 767). Ptgn was "hit" by a plane (AA77 - Boeing 757-223) and does only a small hole. COMPARE THE DAMAGE


I am wonder how many mistakes would You do writing in my language. Oh the irony.

a reply to: angryhulk

the sources are fire department capitans

2k architects is really not that much. im citing experts and physics. instead of disproving my physics from pages back, you dismiss me. instead of addressing the videos, you dismiss me.

you completely missed the point. when steel is heated it loses its structural integrity. dynamic loads have more force than static loads. the floors on all WTCs were build to support static loads not dynamic loads. the steel in the building were not designed to hold up in heat were their structural integrity was weakened. weak steel + dynamic overloads = collapse

let me just add one thing, if you had disagreed with the fire captains that knew wtc7 was going to collapse, and went in there to put out the fires, you'd be dead. so ill take the experts words over your 2k truther architects any day.

originally posted by: residentofearth

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

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.

Move your brain, and look at the title of thread. 9/11. WTC was 1000ft high and brought down by a plane (AA11-Boeing 767). Ptgn was "hit" by a plane (AA77 - Boeing 757-223) and does only a small hole. COMPARE THE DAMAGE


I am wonder how many mistakes would You do writing in my language. Oh the irony.

You are mightily rude. Again. I'll point out that you mentioned the pentagon and then in the same post stated 1000ft. I know what forum this is. I've been here laughing at the ignorance for 2 years now.

I shall compare the damage. Should I also compare the different materials used on the facades of each or is that too inconvenient?

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

the sources are fire department capitans

2k architects is really not that much. im citing experts and physics. instead of disproving my physics from pages back, you dismiss me. instead of addressing the videos, you dismiss me.

you completely missed the point. when steel is heated it loses its structural integrity. dynamic loads have more force than static loads. the floors on all WTCs were build to support static loads not dynamic loads. the steel in the building were not designed to hold up in heat were their structural integrity was weakened. weak steel + dynamic overloads = collapse

Hold on a second, that's not fair considering you haven't addressed my points? So what are we both just ignoring each other now?

Let's say something hit a building. There's a hole in it. A fire erupted in an office, maybe 2, maybe 7 offices in that building. Fire reaches a steady 500 celcius (maybe more, it's possible with your average house fire, discussed above). Let's say it had effected the microstructure of the steel in the surrounding compartment, not the entire floor of course, just that compartment. Maybe several compartments, who knows. Thus making the steel malleable. Let's say the building then fell flat on it's arse in a few seconds, almost as if all 83 columns were effected by the fire all at the same time... I apologise I'm drifting.

2 (and a half) thousand engineers and architects is more than you mate.

In my last post I did not mean it solves everything but only that is solves the physical features of the collapse.

Vjr1113, dynamic loads do not have more force than static loads !!

When a mass m falls the force due to gravity is still mg. When you jump on a scale you get a peak force but that is the reaction force of the scale and not the force your falling mass delivers. However there is momentum mv and kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. I think you confused it a little bit. The peak force is the highest point of a stress-strain diagram and the area is the energy the material can absorb. In a static situation (1d model) in which v=0 and the structure is weakened by fire you never get enough speed to reach the threshold energy. That is exactly the reason the Bazantian collapse model needs to assume a small fall in vacuum otherwise the collapse will be arrested. This models assumes other crazy things like energy dissipation only at the crushing zone which is not very realistic. Furthermore there is no experimental confirmation. Even no computer simulation. Yes wtc7 got one, but it failed miserably.

a reply to: angryhulk

is there a question in there? each floor is built to support the static load above it. columns are vertical, its doesn't matter if they dont fall. what matters is if the horizontal columns can take dynamic loads above them.

originally posted by: drommelsboef

Vjr1113, dynamic loads do not have more force than static loads !!

im done. science is of no value here. enjoy your irrationality

a reply to: scottyirnbru


It has no sense at all, we are too stubborn. We have different point's-of-view and at that moment no-one will change it.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

is there a question in there? each floor is built to support the static load above it. columns are vertical, its doesn't matter if they dont fall. what matters is if the horizontal columns can take dynamic loads above them.

You know what, you're absolutely right. WTC 7 is the first high rise in history to collapse due to a fire. A fire that started due to falling debris. Quite a story.

I'll be sure to ignore all the doubters of the OS, because they are nuts.

a reply to: angryhulk

The third one. Firsts two were Twin Towers.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
In my last post I did not mean it solves everything but only that is solves the physical features of the collapse.

Vjr1113, dynamic loads do not have more force than static loads !!

When a mass m falls the force due to gravity is still mg. When you jump on a scale you get a peak force but that is the reaction force of the scale and not the force your falling mass delivers. However there is momentum mv and kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2. I think you confused it a little bit. The peak force is the highest point of a stress-strain diagram and the area is the energy the material can absorb. In a static situation (1d model) in which v=0 and the structure is weakened by fire you never get enough speed to reach the threshold energy. That is exactly the reason the Bazantian collapse model needs to assume a small fall in vacuum otherwise the collapse will be arrested. This models assumes other crazy things like energy dissipation only at the crushing zone which is not very realistic. Furthermore there is no experimental confirmation. Even no computer simulation. Yes wtc7 got one, but it failed miserably.

Sorry but I have to interject here (and I'm a "truther")

While you are correct that the force is the same if just going by gravity alone.

F=ma

You have to take into account the added force when acceleration goes from a large number to zero in a short amount of time.

Therefore impact force is always more than static force.

Now back to the back-n-forth typical of 9/11 threads........

a reply to: angryhulk

are you saying that steel cannot be weakened by heat? are you saying that the fires were started on purpose?

provide evidence steel cannot be weakened by heat or that the fires were started on purpose.

the number of times something happens does not mean it cannot happen. the questions are, can steel lose its structural integrity by heat and were the floors designed to withstand the dynamic loads above them?

originally posted by: residentofearth
a reply to: angryhulk

The third one. Firsts two were Twin Towers.

And planes flying into them at 'super-duper' speeds.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

are you saying that steel cannot be weakened by heat? are you saying that the fires were started on purpose?

provide evidence steel cannot be weakened by heat or that the fires were started on purpose.

the number of times something happens does not mean it cannot happen. the questions are, can steel lose its structural integrity by heat and were the floors designed to withstand the dynamic loads above them?

No, I never once said that steel is not weakened by heat. You must have me confused with someone else. In fact in my previous-ish post (just up there) and my posts on the previous page, I actually say, with real words, that enough heat will effect the base material, have a detrimental effect on the microstructure and make a material malleable.

What I dispute is the official story. I think you're maybe panic typing now. Is that even a thing? Today we discussed the first ever high-rise collapsing due to a fire, and the first ever panic typer.

a reply to: angryhulk

easy there now. im trying to understand where you're coming from.

if i said the big bang is impossible because it's never happened before, id be making a fallacy.

so can we agree that heat can weaken steel and that each of the WTC floors were not built to support their dynamic loads above them? are you saying that you agree with the physics but disagree with the official story just because its the official story and the government must be lying?

a reply to: vjr1113

what matters is if the horizontal columns can take dynamic loads above them.

There were no horizontal columns in the WTC's.
That is the design flaw that allowed the buildings to fall.

The conspiracy believers fail to recognize that one simple fact.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

easy there now. im trying to understand where you're coming from.

if i said the big bang is impossible because it's never happened before, id be making a fallacy.

so can we agree that heat can weaken steel and that each of the WTC floors were not built to support their dynamic loads above them? are you saying that you agree with the physics but disagree with the official story just because its the official story and the government must be lying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Entire floors in WTC 7 were not on fire.

Why do you keep referring to 'the physics' like it means something? "Physics is everything", "the physics", lol.

So yeah, small compartments of heat and (potentially) soft metal will not bring down WTC.

Also, if you throw a few elephants at it, it will not contribute to the collapse. (Falling debris, trying to put a different spin on things)

a reply to: angryhulk

im talking about on floor being on fire because thats all i need.

if the steel in one floor loses its structural integrity due to fire, can that floor collapse?

are the floors below it designed to support the dynamic load (the weight above it moving at freefall speed)?

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: angryhulk

im talking about on floor being on fire because thats all i need.

if the steel in one floor loses its structural integrity due to fire, can that floor collapse?

are the floors below it designed to support the dynamic load (the weight above it moving at freefall speed)?

A whole floor was not on fire. See my previous post, and the ones before that.

a reply to: angryhulk

am i to believe a fire that burned for hours stayed in one corner of the room? why? to be polite?

ill add multiple floors in wtc7 burned for hours. and the fire captains noticed the building had visible structural failure and in their professional opinion, wtc7 was going to collapse. had they listened to you and gone in to put out the fires, they would have died.