9/11 #130: # Cartoon planes

quote:

WTC Building 7 Data Released: University of Alaska Fairbanks has released over 600GB of data regarding their finding that fire did NOT bring down building 7 on 9/11, as claimed by NIST - which has yet to release their data.

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

In summary, several findings were made from the analyses above:

Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building. Instead, they needed to have failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse.

The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore, the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column 79 would trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event.

Even if we assume the failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 could lead to the failure of the next row of core columns, the hypothetical failure of Columns 76 to 81 would overload the exterior columns around the southeast corner of the building, rather than overloading the next row of core columns to the west, which would result in the building tipping to the southeast and not in a straight-down collapse.

The hypothetical simultaneous failure of all core columns would cause the building to tip to the southwest and would not cause a straight-down collapse.

The simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. The collapse could have started at various floors starting at Floor 16 and below and produced the same behavior.

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the nearsimultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused 112 a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

SEPTEMBER CLUES 9/11 (original upload by the author)

Ace Baker - Key to 9/11 is video fakery

American's First Boeing B767-200 is Scrapped

quote:

Op dinsdag 7 april 2020 21:09 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]
Je heb m'n post niet helemaal goed gelezen. (ook niet zo'n vreemde aktie van jou is)

quote:

Op woensdag 8 april 2020 00:37 schreef illusions het volgende:

[..]

Het is je al 1000 keer uitgelegd maar je wilt het niet horen, je blijft maar jokken.

Het plaatje herhalen maakt je "bewijs" er niet beter op.

quote:

Op woensdag 8 april 2020 08:32 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Die vraag is niet beantwoord.
Dit is het moment dat de vaste kern in dit topic aan komen zetten met het feit dat alles door alles kan, mits het de juiste snelheid heeft.
Vergelijkingen met staal snijden dmv water, en een aardappel die door de wand van een busje gaat. Of die houten balk die door metselwerk gaat heb ik ook al zien passeren.
Echter nergens een voorbeeld van een hol aluminium voorwerp, dat door centimeters dik staal gaat.
Als ik dan een filmpje post met wat een telefoonpaal voor schade aanricht aan een vliegtuigvleugel, is dat ineens niet relevant.

En zo gaat het hier al jaren....

quote:

Op dinsdag 7 april 2020 19:05 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

Yes, great stuff. There are about 20 different 10minute vids.
Sadly, September Clues youtube channel was removed a couple of years ago.

quote:

Op woensdag 8 april 2020 10:20 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

Of in dit gevel - geen enkel stalen balken snijden.
_{(Sorry hoor, but I couldn't resist that one)}

quote:

Op woensdag 8 april 2020 10:30 schreef Tingo het volgende:
I think most scientists/engineers/archtects know that the scenario is impossible, but don't want to get involved for all kinds of reasons....jobs,careers,reputations,incomes etc.
For example, if a physics teacher were to explain to their pupils that what we saw in the 9/11 TV show was impossible, they may be reprimanded for it or even lose their job (?)

Anyway, I've posted this before, but in case anyone missed (or ignored) it...
I think this is a good, simple explanation that most people should understand.....
Disclaimer: Yes I know the objects and materials are different from the 9/11 'collision' scenario, but the physics are the same....before certain users go off on some unnecessary, surrealistic tangent.

https://www.thoughtco.com(...)ar-collision-2698920

During a car crash, energy is transferred from the vehicle to whatever it hits, be it another vehicle or an object. This transfer of energy, depending on variables that alter states of motion, can cause injuries and damage cars and property. The object that was struck will in turn either absorb the energy thrust upon it or possibly even transfer that energy back to the first vehicle. Focusing on the distinction between force and energy can help explain the physics involved.

Consider a situation in which car A collides with a static, unbreakable wall. The situation begins with car A traveling at a velocity (v) and upon colliding with the wall, it ends with a velocity of 0. The force of this situation is defined by Newton's second law of motion, which uses the equation of force equals mass times acceleration. In this case, the acceleration is (v - 0)/t, where t is whatever time it takes car A to come to a stop.

It is important to note that this is an idealized model. In the case of car A, which slams into the wall and comes to an immediate stop, would be a perfectly inelastic collision. Since the wall doesn't break or move at all, the full force of the car into the wall has to go somewhere. Either the wall is so massive that it accelerates/moves an imperceptible amount or it doesn't move at all, in which case the force of the collision actually acts on both the car itself and on the entire planet, the latter of which is, obviously, so massive that the effects are negligible.

Since these are inelastic collisions, the kinetic energy is not conserved, but total energy is always conserved, so the kinetic energy "lost" in the collision has to convert into some other form - heat, sound, etc.

Maybe 'inelastic collision' could be the key words - I'll look more into that later.