9/11 - Europhysics report

Status
Not open for further replies.


Has anyone questioning the collapse of wtc 7 actually been to the twin towers before and after? I went up the twin towers in 2000. The size of them is hard to get your head around unless you saw it for yourself. I then when back in 2002/3 the buildings around ground zero were still damaged even then. To think that the side of wtc7 that you don’t see in video footage isn’t damaged would be moronic. The two towers didn’t fall neatly you can see the top of one of them literally break off and come down at an angle. Why does no-one question the collapse of the hotel at the base of the towers? Maybe because millions of tons of concrete fell on it?
 
daedalus said:
Look it up. They passed it off as fact for years until challenged by engineers and physicists from institutions like MIT- who know considerably more than the naysayers on here.
Click to expand...

Is this the new go to response :D

Make a claim then when asked for evidence just tell people to look it up
 
daedalus said:
Look it up. They passed it off as fact for years until challenged by engineers and physicists from institutions like MIT- who know considerably more than the naysayers on here.
Click to expand...
NIST then said they were right all along and the people from MIT were talking nonsense.
 
No7 said:
You're the one here claiming something as fact - prove it.

I still haven't found a single article, just so you know
Click to expand...
From NIST. 2005 "NIST does not support the pancake theory' (they did before 2005)
However, they then go on to explain the collapse, which is the definition of the pancake theory:

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

The Smithsonian institute which backs the official story on 9/11, says this hypothesis is fatally flawed.
 
niceonemarra said:
I don't know obvs if it was an inside job but to answer your question I'd say money power and world domination.
Click to expand...

Bit elaborate to go to the lengths they did. Imagine how hard it would be to plan it then invent bin Laden and hunt him down and kill him in 2011.
Why not just plant a bomb and detonate it like bin Laden failed to do in 1993
 
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

What A Waster said:
Bit elaborate to go to the lengths they did. Imagine how hard it would be to plan it then invent bin Laden and hunt him down and kill him in 2011.
Why not just plant a bomb and detonate it like bin Laden failed to do in 1993
Click to expand...
Its a strange one isn't it. Some people are convinced it was an inside job kit kat heeds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What A Waster said:
Bit elaborate to go to the lengths they did. Imagine how hard it would be to plan it then invent bin Laden and hunt him down and kill him in 2011.
Why not just plant a bomb and detonate it like bin Laden failed to do in 1993
Click to expand...

They don't believe bin laden is dead marra.
 
daedalus said:
From NIST. 2005 "NIST does not support the pancake theory' (they did before 2005)
However, they then go on to explain the collapse, which is the definition of the pancake theory:

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

The Smithsonian institute which backs the official story on 9/11, says this hypothesis is fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what point you’re trying to make here? You’ve just told me how the building collapsed, when I know how the building collapsed, or am I missing something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top