And yet you believe a wing designed to convert airflow to lift becomes a penetrating missile cabable to slice through dozens of steel box columns if it goes fast enough. This doesn't bode well for the gene pool.
Incredulity, ad hominem. And, yes, I do believe a wing with sufficient velocity and the right type of construction, both of which I believe were present on 9/11, would be able to and did sever the exterior columns of WTC 1 and 2, regardless of what it was originally designed for. I can use an iron as an effective bludgeon, if need be, and screwdrivers and toothbrushes are often used as murder weapons. Also:
This probably wasn't in the design specs for that car.
Also, quote-mining now? Are you sure you're not Ergo?
I fail to see why anyone is arguing with this guy. Give him your blessing to do his test and he'll be on his way.
Does anyone have a reason why you wouldn't want him to do this? It's not like his views on math and physics are going to have any impact on the world.
We already said we have no problem with him doing it. We have a problem with him not revealing his math until he does it, however, especially since he now admits he doesn't have any.
Your first mistake is assuming I'll be doing the math.
Your second is assuming it won't have an impact.
I'd like to introduce you to something called a Stundie.
Skipped a grade and graduated early, a couple months after my 16th birthday. Happy?
Are you going to tell me your real name and background now?
No one asked you to give us your name.
The materials in the wing were thinner, less dense and less massive than those used in the building. This is why MIT gave up on crunching the numbers - because math can't prove a lie.
Funny. You dropped the question of pressure and energy all of a sudden, because you know MIT clearly calculated that. MIT clearly said they didn't crunch the numbers because they couldn't simulate it in enough detail.
I'm willing to admit I might be wrong, hence the need for an empirical test to prove it one way or the other. Anyone here able to admit they might be wrong and willing to put their money where their mouth is by conducting a test to prove it?
It can and has been proven one way or another without the test. Using math. Which you refuse to do. Because you can't.
On the other hand, you've effectively admitted your "layman's terms" explanations from earlier weren't because you were dumbing it down for the masses, but
because you are unable or unwilling to perform more complex analyses.
Isn't it a wee bit hypocritical to demand others use math to prove their case, but you don't have to?
