9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

originally posted by: drommelsboef
dynamic loads do not have more force than static loads !!

Oh dear, again you show your complete ignorance of science, thinking that. That is one of the reasons then whole "truth" movement is considered a huge joke.

Here is another demonstration by a truther.

originally posted by: angryhulk

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

Just because I like you HONEST

Go to Flame Temp In Room Firesl

Oh and here is another snippet for the hard of learning.

I Posted way back in 2012

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

That changed after 9/11

a reply to: drommelsboef

REAL LIFE



Care to comment

a reply to: angryhulk

You are not taking into account thermal loading induced by the heat and that was NOT considered in building design when the towers were constructed.

Also NOBODY on either side can really know the extent of the structural damage done oh and as for the fires.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Not one picture has ever been shown with 757 parts at or around , or in the Pentagon.

Come again....??

Looks like have not done any research

Fuselage

sites.google.com...

www.911myths.com...

Jet engine

www.911myths.com...

Wheel Rim

www.911myths.com...

Landing gear

www.911myths.com...

APU access door

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: Dragoon01

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.

Seem to have missed the whole point

The hijackers were NOT LANDING AND TAXIING PLANE...!!

They were crashing it into the building Kamikaze style at max possible speed to cause as much damage as possible....

a reply to: angryhulk

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.

Buildings collapsed from fire long before the WTC

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

These are buildings which were intact, no structural damage from aircraft impacts, fire proofing intact, not striped off
the steel by impacts

Fires which were fought by FD, WTC 7 was abandoned when realized there was no water in building to fight fires.

a reply to: angryhulk

Small fires at WTC ....??

Multiple floors on fire here - entire floors involved

www.youtube.com...

Now tell me about the "SMALL FIRES"........

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: angryhulk

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.

Buildings collapsed from fire long before the WTC

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

These are buildings which were intact, no structural damage from aircraft impacts, fire proofing intact, not striped off
the steel by impacts

Fires which were fought by FD, WTC 7 was abandoned when realized there was no water in building to fight fires.

So you think Building 7 collapsed in one fell swoop by isolated fires on a few floors?

The video of the fire you showed is almost laughable. Building 7 has got to have been the worst constructed building in the history of modern engineering.

This building had many more floors burned, burned for longer and burned so hot that all that was left was the frame.
Even though so parts collapsed, note that the frame remained, a sizable part of the frame remained.

Meanwhile building 7 fell straight down like domino tower, how and why?

a reply to: yesyesyes

Building 7 has got to have been the worst constructed building in the history of modern engineering.

You forget that 7 was built over top a power substation.
They had to suspend part of the foundation above the sub station.

originally posted by: vjr1113
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.

What? How small do you think WTC 7 was? You think fires ravaged entire floors? Haha.

a reply to: yesyesyes

CONCRETE STRUCTURES

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: angryhulk

Small fires at WTC ....??

Multiple floors on fire here - entire floors involved

www.youtube.com...

Now tell me about the "SMALL FIRES"........

I didn't say small fires? Why do you keep quoting "small fires"? The fires were massive. However the building is also 'massive' so in relation to that the 'areas' on fire were relatively small and they were held within numerous compartments throughout the building. Not entire floors.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: angryhulk

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.

Buildings collapsed from fire long before the WTC

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

These are buildings which were intact, no structural damage from aircraft impacts, fire proofing intact, not striped off
the steel by impacts

Fires which were fought by FD, WTC 7 was abandoned when realized there was no water in building to fight fires.

I said high rise. Why do you keep mis-quoting what I said. Is there something wrong with you?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: angryhulk

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

Just because I like you HONEST

Go to Flame Temp In Room Firesl

Oh and here is another snippet for the hard of learning.

I Posted way back in 2012

Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for.

That changed after 9/11

So you have your source, and I have mine. Both valid sources that describe different results. Nothing we can do here.

a reply to: firerescue

No I got the point. He asserts that you could not possibly see planes fly by at low level going really fast.
I used a comparison of the landing planes just to show that you can indeed watch planes and drive.
Drive by a big airport and you will see that the planes spend a very long time in view. Landing speeds for large aircraft are still in the 100kts range so while the Pentagon plane may have been going 4 times as fast you would still have a very long time to see it and know what it is.

HelloBruce, don't ridicule my story about peak forces by picking out one sentence. I think you mean the same as me, but I explained some physics behind it. Read again. I have a physics degree btw.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Ok want to work out possible impact load of just one 900 ton floor slab falling about 3.2 mtrs using that physics degree.

a reply to: samkent

Clearly you are either purposely spreading misinformation, or you haven't read the bios. It is called Architects and Engineers for 911 truth for a reason. That is exactly what they all are. I guess discrediting and deflecting is a good tactic though.

I had never actually gone through the bios until I read your comment. I just spent quite a bit of time doing just that, and I thank you for creating that opportunity for me.

a reply to: Winstonian

ARCHITECTS don't do STRUCTURAL calculations neither do chemical engineers or mechanical engineers or electrical engineers many are members of that group