somebody produce the source data for this cartoon
because without that data, any bit of computer animation is only a cartoon.
…
Note that as the airliner crams a 5 meter dia body into 3.6 meters ( further constricted by having floor truss structure ) there would have to be energy expended in the form of slowing down the aircraft, as it slows down, there would be progressively less KE to work with and the required force to cram the airliner into the building would not diminish so at some point, maybe with the tail of the aircraft still sticking out of the hole, the action would stop and all of the energy would have been expended.
WHY should people expect that in 3 separate airliner crashes, the Towers & the Pentagon, that in all three, the airliner in question would penetrate completely and disappear inside the building? ( what are the odds? )
So then why are you demonstrating such a *horrendous *conception of physics and kinetic energy?
Let me put it this way: If the people whose FUCKING JOB is to examine architectural systems failures tell me I’ve got it wrong I’d really, really deeply consider my own position might be incorrect.
Because the last time I bothered to look at that website is was a mishmash of out-of-context quotes along with outright fabrications that should have been an total embarassment to the any conpsiracy movement except that CTers are incapable of feeling shame or embarassment.
A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the actual percentage of relevant engineers. None of the AE911T members have published an alternative scenario for the collapse, and have their ranks inflated by filling it with irrelevant degrees such as Computer Engineers and Electrical Engineers, both of whom are important for industry, but are not the people who understand structural issues. Oh, and Ricahrd Gage, their leader, is a con-artist.
Besides what I said above there was also my earlier post (which you ibviously studiously avoided) where I linked to an examination of just how thin AE911Truth’s membership is among relevant engineering degrees.
Furthermore - have any of the AE911T argued that the plane would not smash through the building? Does Richard Gage outright agree with you that the planes should have bounced off the towers? I’m pretty sure he argues for demolitions but never claiming anything like what you are proposing.
So I think even the 911 con-artists aren’t on your side.
It’s in the link…there is a link to the paper. Unlike what you are using, they cited their data AND assumptions. Plus, math and stuff. Did you click on the link to the paper that was on the page cited by Gigo? :dubious:
What are the odds that a plane hitting the building wouldn’t bounce off and instead continue into the building? I’d say pretty close to 100%…though I suppose with quantum probability the airplane COULD have spontaneously turned into either a flower or a whale.
You do understand that the planes didn’t ‘disappear inside the building’ though, right? I mean, parts of the planes were found (at least one of the engines went into the building and came out the other side)…right? But if we take ‘disappeared’ to mean 'disintegrated into the building, then, yeah…pretty close to 100%.
Remember, his is the group that suckered Danny Jowenko into agreeing with them regarding Seven by stripping all audio from the footage he was shown and not telling him it was Seven until after he agreed. And couldn’t get him to agree at all regarding One and Two.
I don’t need to as others have already comprehensively responded to your claims. Again, how have your views been altered by those responses? What sort of response might cause you to alter your views?
according to the NIST final word on the subject
WTC 7 fell because of office fires … their words not mine.
the problem here is that people have been totally bamboozled in that
the fall of WTC7 includes 2.25 sec of 9.8 ms^2 acceleration, and in that
time the building drops straight down and keeps its shape.
(now this will draw no end of fire … but … )
the fact is that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration is total proof beyond any question that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition.
there has been a lot of arguing back & forth about how it could have happened
however to achieve the observed result, no amount of single point of failure or “progressive collapse” can explain away the obvious here, the building was blown up!
the ONLY way that I would not hold the truth that I presently do
would be for there to have been on the afternoon of 9/11/2001
news reports that included photos of believable aircraft wreckage at the various crash sites, and also the incomplete demolition of WTC 1 & 2 and WTC7 damaged but still standing. Just look at the PENTAGON, where is the airliner? what it all burned up in the inferno that was ignited by the crash?
this whole scene is the BIG BAMBOOZLE and its really sickening to see AMERICA get screwed in this way.
Too bad that the debris pattern says the building initially fell to the northwest, causing irreparable damage to the roof and upper floors of the CUNY building across the street at 30 West Broadway, with the southwest corner later separating and sliding into the Verizon building next door.