Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

[TheRedWorm]

<SNIP>

How is your inability to show your math my problem?

 

[fitzgibbon]

It'll be meaningful for honest people.

This isn't the road to Damascus and you're no Diogenes.

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

Wow. He was pretty good. Of course, the road was plowed by knowing that there's a regular truther who sounds a lot like him. Most trolls don't set up a website.

8/10.

Weird, though. He stopped responding to me after I kept making posts comprehensively knocking him down, just like a genuine Truther would. In fact, ergo has me and others on Ignore for that very reason.



On the off chance you're not a troll; liar. I like how you moved goalposts from MIT to no one after I pointed out MIT did explain.

I'm going to refresh the PDF a few dozen times now, just to drive up your bandwidth without giving you any ad revenue.

I don't have any ads nor a donate button.

I'm not the one claiming the physics proves a jet can slice through a steel skyscraper. If there is a document that proves such a thing, surely you can point to the equation. Since you don't want to give my site traffic, head over to MIT - but the link I provided contains my comments on your math.

 

[fitzgibbon]

More projection - you haven't figured out such statements say more about you than about me.

Uh...no. Colloquialisms are generally-accepted usages. It seems you're not willing to put words and specifics to your usage. Tant pit.

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

This isn't the road to Damascus and you're no Diogenes.

Diogenes should have been looking for a dishonest man, he might have had a better attitude.

 

[000063]

Eyeroll please -

Here we go with the water jets - next will be Kamikazes and the straw through the tree -


http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm

The key is PRESSURE and a tiny point of impact. Not exactly a fair compairson to a jet, is it?

Pretty fair.

I like how you keep talking about pressure and energy but refuse to talk about how much. Of course, that would require math comparing the energy of a plane with the energy of a bullet, and we all know how you hate high school physics.

 

[yankee451]

Uh...no. Colloquialisms are generally-accepted usages. It seems you're not willing to put words and specifics to your usage. Tant pit.

Fitz

I'm sure you'd like to trade barbs all day.

 

[TheRedWorm]

<SNIP>

I can't read your math because you have yet to post it here. Do so now, if you can.

 

[yankee451]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/PIksrqM.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/sQnHC44.jpg[/qimg]

Pretty fair.

I like how you keep talking about pressure and energy but refuse to talk about how much. Of course, that would require math comparing the energy of a plane with the energy of a bullet, and we all know how you hate high school physics.

It is a dishonest comparison. The mass and energy of a jet is spread out over it's length and width, just like a bullet. But a jet's impact would not focus it's energy on a tiny point - it would spread it out over 160 feet of wingspan. It is for this reason MIT threw in the towel and Purdue won't show their data behind their cartoon.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I'm sure you'd like to trade barbs all day.

Boring troll's still boring. Anyway, off to replace an old toilet. Time to deal with other malodorous ****.

Fitz

 

[000063]

I don't have any ads nor a donate button.

I wouldn't know, since I only looked at the PDF.

I'm not the one claiming the physics proves a jet can slice through a steel skyscraper.

No, you're the one all but stating that it the physics prove it won't.

If there is a document that proves such a thing, surely you can point to the equation.

Nope. You're the one making the contrary claim.

Since you don't want to give my site traffic, head over to MIT - but the link I provided contains my comments on your math.

The link you provided to your hosting of the MIT paper - with those odd little red marks added - clearly shows that MIT talked about the math, directly contrary to your claims. Now you're implying that "no one" proved a plane could cut through a girder. This is what's known as moving the goalposts. When you get proven wrong, you just change your claim and hope no one notices. The funny thing is that you haven't provided any evidentiary support other than your own skepticism.

It seems you think there's a chance the wing could cut through. So, why didn't you answer my question? In light of that, not wanting to stand in it's path is perfectly reasonable.

 

[yankee451]

I can't read your math because you have yet to post it here. Do so now, if you can.

Backspace. You'll find it.

 

[Animal]

Let's do a little impromptu survey.

Do you want to stop him from doing this? (I vote) NO

Would you love to see the carnage in the video if he did it? (I vote) YES

Do you think he can raise enough money? (I vote) NO WAY IN HELL.

You forgot.....

Do you think he will get the testing parameters correct or even close to correct? (I vote NO WAY IN HELL)

 

[TheRedWorm]

Backspace. You'll find it.

Stop dodging and post your math, if you can.

 

[BasqueArch]

I don't have any ads nor a donate button.

I'm not the one claiming the physics proves a jet can slice through a steel skyscraper. If there is a document that proves such a thing, surely you can point to the equation. Since you don't want to give my site traffic, head over to MIT - but the link I provided contains my comments on your math.

I've already said the projects figures will be avaialble to all when they're ready. My project has just begun, so you'll need to be patient, but the experts have had more than a decade to crunch their numbers. Pity you don't know where they are.

Here's MIT's math, is that what you're looking for? http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf

Dude you debunked yourself. (highlights in document by yankee)
From your link above.
It took 4% and 3% of the kinetic energy of the planes to punch through the perimeter columns.

"Table 3. Distribution of energy lost in the local damage of the TWC Towers
The energy is in the unit of MJ.
Energy (MJ) North South
Airplane 586 23% 586 25%
Exterior 103 4% 122 3%Floors 1221 48% 1925 53%
Core columns 630 25% 1025 28%
Total 2540 100% 3658 100%"

 

[Animal]

Eyeroll please -

Here we go with the water jets - next will be Kamikazes and the straw through the tree -


http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question553.htm

The key is PRESSURE and a tiny point of impact. Not exactly a fair compairson to a jet, is it?

Here we go with the ignorance of physics........free hint. whether it is water, a bullet, or an airplane wing, it all goes back to Newton. But I am sure you will find a way to handwave that away as well in order to support your belief in woo.

 

[yankee451]

I wouldn't know, since I only looked at the PDF.

No, you're the one all but stating that it the physics prove it won't.

Nope. You're the one making the contrary claim.

The link you provided to your hosting of the MIT paper - with those odd little red marks added - clearly shows that MIT talked about the math, directly contrary to your claims. Now you're implying that "no one" proved a plane could cut through a girder. This is what's known as moving the goalposts. When you get proven wrong, you just change your claim and hope no one notices. The funny thing is that you haven't provided any evidentiary support other than your own skepticism.

It seems you think there's a chance the wing could cut through. So, why didn't you answer my question? In light of that, not wanting to stand in it's path is perfectly reasonable.

They gave up on calculating the interaction between the wings and the columns - they rolled up all the aluminum in the wing and reformed it into a thick machete but even then they gave up on trying to explain how it cut the steel.

 

[yankee451]

Here we go with the ignorance of physics........free hint. whether it is water, a bullet, or an airplane wing, it all goes back to Newton. But I am sure you will find a way to handwave that away as well in order to support your belief in woo.

Small point of impact focusing energy and mass at a small point ensures maximum penetration. Guess what causes more drag? More surface area. This is why penetrating missiles are shaped like spears and not like a jet wing.

 

[fitzgibbon]

They gave up on calculating the interaction between the wings and the columns - they rolled up all the aluminum in the wing and reformed it into a thick machete but even then they gave up on trying to explain how it cut the steel.

Someone feel free to correct me but the steel broke at the joints, did it not?

Fitz

 

[yankee451]

Dude you debunked yourself. (highlights in document by yankee)
From your link above.
It took 4% and 3% of the kinetic energy of the planes to punch through the perimeter columns.

"Table 3. Distribution of energy lost in the local damage of the TWC Towers
The energy is in the unit of MJ.
Energy (MJ) North South
Airplane 586 23% 586 25%
Exterior 103 4% 122 3%Floors 1221 48% 1925 53%
Core columns 630 25% 1025 28%
Total 2540 100% 3658 100%"

Page 32:

The floors and floor trusses were the next barrier to overcome. The floor trusses
consisted of hundreds of beam-like tubular members. At this stage of the analysis it was
impossible to develop a detailed computational model of this complex assembly. Therefore
the entire volume of steel used by the floors was lumped into a uniform steel plate of the
equivalent thickness.