9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: Informer1958

What I want to know is, why wasn't paper shredded that day and why didn't the car "fires", if those were actual fires, burn the same paper?

Paper, dust, and some alluminum clading that was what was remaining of the two 800 million tons of material of those towers. Where did it go?

288,000 tons. Oops. Just ignore facts. Go with what you think instead.

originally posted by: yesyesyes

originally posted by: vjr1113
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.

In construction and in physics you can build things to scale to demonstrate how forces act on buildings, airplanes and anything you build really. It is a common practice to experiment small before you build big.

Again the point is, there was not enough force pressing down to make the lower undamaged floors collapse.

The lower floors that were not hit or on fire held that weight up for decades, so why would they fail to continue to hold up even less weight?

you have to take in consideration that there were several floors being weakened by heat to cause structural failure. if you have 38k tons falling on a structurally weakened floor, now you have 38k tons plus what was on the floor below it.

so 38k tons + 1 floor, for the sake of argument lest make on floor one ton with (this is a fact i researched this) each floor was designed to support 1.3k tons of static weight. this means stationary weight that doesnt move.

however they were not designed to hold up to moving weight which has way more force.

now if we have the inevitable collapse of one weakened floor, there is no way the floor below it can hold up against the momentum of 38+1 ton of moving weight, now we keep going, 39+1 tons of moving weight, 40+1 tons of moving weight, and so on and so on increasing the weight.

when that first floor went out, the momentum and force created by weight and fall speed, collapsed the floor below adding to the overall weight, therefore collapsing the floor below it because it was designed to hold up to STATIC loads and not DYNAMIC loads created by fall and weight.

in reality, once one floor gave out with that much weight at that speed, the rest of the floors had no chance at all. physics proves this, math proves this, science proves this. now take in consideration the massive amounts of conspiracy is needed to cover this up and the structural failing and falling of wtc and tower 7, 9/11 conspiracy is at least considerably doubtful, and in relatively explained.

9/11 conspiracy debunked. having said that, when i first came to this site about 7 years ago, i was a die-hard 9/11 truther, collecting little unexplained shreds of suspicious examples i couldnt justify at the time to weave what i thought was a very solid hypothesis. i know better now because i can understand the little physics i know, and i know to most i sound like im a reptilian puppet spreading disinfo, but i cant ignore the science, and physics, and the reasonable doubt, that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

a reply to: ArJunaBug

ARCHITECTS DONT DO STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS !

Structural Engineers best customers are Architects.

I spend a lot of my time in or on partly built buildings I also sometimes test building components to destruction and advise on prper installation & usage.

On mobile just now will post more tonight.

originally posted by: bastupungen
of the two 800 million tons of material of those towers.

2 X 800 million tons? No wonder truthers are laughed at so much when they post such crap!

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Nevermind the size of the pile there is almost no pile at all, and a total of 7 buildings virtually missing.

In a controlled demolition which is what people here and in A&E are claiming, you would have about 12.5% left of the buildings in material, debris. That's over 13 floors of compacted debris. There is no sign of 13 floors of compacted debris from pictures on that day (some even just a few hours after the incident). There is almost no debris at all, thermite, thermate, nukes or conventional explosives does not explain the missing material, the totally wrecked cars without explenation or any of the other oddities observes and recorded that day.

Bottomline: Your response isn't serious, try again.

a reply to: hellobruce

1,500,000 tons—the weight of the Twin Towers

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

you're right, 800 000 tons, i'm sorry 800 000 000 Kilos

BTW: NOT a truther, truthers are not after truth they're after group-think because it makes it easier to go on

a reply to: scottyirnbru


You're right, a miss there, but you're also wrong, 800.000 tons of building material and then office furniture above that

pesn.com...

originally posted by: bastupungen
The totally wrecked cars without explenation

What explanation do you want? They were damaged by fire....

or any of the other oddities observes and recorded that day.

Such as what exactly?

originally posted by: bastupungen
a reply to: hellobruce

1,500,000 tons—the weight of the Twin Towers

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

you're right, 800 000 tons, i'm sorry

800 000 000 Kilos

BTW: NOT a truther, truthers are not after truth they're after group-think because it makes it easier to go on

That's a single line statement with zero calculations to back it up. Try this one instead.

911research.wtc7.net...

288,000 tons. Read the calculations.

a reply to: hellobruce

"What explanation do you want? They were damaged by fire.... "

There are plenty of picture of these "burning" cars surrounded by paper but paper underneath the burning cars isn't touched. As far as I know paper burns quite easily and fast. AND the damage reported, observed and reported does not fit with a regular car-fire.

That's just a small bit of what's wrong with the car "fires". I recommend you take a look for yourself and then report back to me what explanation you might have, cause fires just don't fit or explain anything. Try again, don't give up!

a reply to: scottyirnbru

I'm sorry I don't trust the source since it doesn't look holistically at the subject. It only presents the data that fits a carefully narrowed view, aka conventional and/or unconventional explosives were the primary destrucive mechanism. I don't think this is true and I think you're being controlled, or doing the controlling.

But that's me!

Glad I missed this one.

Done my term in the 911 sandbox.

originally posted by: bastupungen
There are plenty of picture of these "burning" cars surrounded by paper but paper underneath the burning cars isn't touched. As far as I know paper burns quite easily and fast. AND the damage reported, observed and reported does not fit with a regular car-fire.

The paper came after the cars were burnt.... the damage does fit a normal fire - why do you think it does not?

That's just a small bit of what's wrong with the car "fires".

But therer is nothing wrong with them....

cause fires just don't fit or explain anything.

They do, actually. Mythical beam weapons fired from space do not fit!

a reply to: hellobruce

As I said, and I don't like to have to repeat myself, there are plenty of picture where the car is "burning" and paper is located right under the fire and the paper isn't affected.

Will I have to repeat myself again? Are you not going to look at this at all, just ignore and redicule? Then don't respond, please. I am looking for hostest people to look at this, not agents (willful or not)

a reply to: Informer1958
The power behind the controllers is so powerful and vast that engineers and architects can lose jobs not be able to feed their families never to find work again.
And for those who find the experiments to be less than adequate, find a site where skepticism is lauded.

a reply to: bastupungen

The strangely damaged cars are one of the several facts that support the nuclear theory. They puzzled me for years, and IMO the nuclear theory is the only one that explains the car damage.

a reply to: Salander

How does that support the nuclear theory?

a reply to: hellobruce

They do, actually. Mythical beam weapons fired from space do not fit!

No one is claiming this but you, get it?

a reply to: bastupungen

I think you are taking the events, through pictures, out of context.
There were a lot of people there that day.
None of them said the burnt cars were out of the norm.

With out knowing the exact time and location the picture was taken you have no basis to claim it was odd.
Did the paper just blow under the car a second before the picture was taken?

All of these conspiracy claims are coming from people who were not there, on site that day.