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

[yankee451]

I'd like to have your comment on these videos Yankee;



And this one;

I've seen them. Thanks.

 

[yankee451]

Heck, he won't even provide a scientific analysis of why anyone should prefer missiles over planes to explain the crater, and his theory handwaves away all the other evidence. How the heck could all the inventoried debris have been inside a missile or two?

It's coming. I'll remind you that after 11 years, you won't/can't even supply the scientific analysis to justify the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[yankee451]

That test PROVES your theory has no merit since you seem to build it on a lighter material (BS and misleading, but that's besides the point) can't hurt a stronger material fantasy.

What language is this?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Ping pong ball fired through laminated wood

http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/supersonic-ping-pong-ball.html

What does your physics say should happed here?

I see the ROOSD in a tube/funnel mechanism paradigm in action.

I don't think the 767 passed through a tube or funnel before it hit the tower.

 

[JohnG]

...because you whined well and I'm in a good mood:

Charming. If this is you in a good mood, I'd hate to see you in a bad mood. Still, you are IIRC the first person who has ever even attempted to answer my questions, so credit where credit is due. Having said that...

Have you ever considered the goal was the destruction of the whole WTC complex and to use the destruction as a pretext for long-planned invasions?

How's about we go where the evidence takes us, whether we like the destination or not, and not just invent scenarios out of thin air? You are asking me to consider that the U.S. Government's goal was to cripple the financial hub of...The United States? How is that a good plan and more importantly, where is your evidence? Even if that was their goal, you still haven't explained why they deliberately chose a method that on one hand managed to fool most of the world and yet was head-slappingly obvious to you. You aren't going to mention the "school of hard knocks" again, are you?

Like a religious fundamentalist who sees something they can't quite comprehend and says "God did it", you and other CTists see a horrible tragedy and your first thought is "The Government did it". You then work backwards to try to reverse engineer a theory that dovetails with your forgone conclusion.

Since a jet would be shredded and since terrorists don't have crusie missiles, there would be very few options for this operation, but thank goodness the military have owned the media since its inception. They have generations of experience with making us believe impossible things. 9/11 wasn't the first time by a long shot, this crap goes back to before Sparticus, but now they have digital media to manipulate us.

But why even try make us believe "impossible things"? If a jet crashing into a skyscraper and the ensuing fire can't cause the skyscraper to collapse, why did the conspirators choose such an outlandish narrative? Why not use bombs, even a small nuke? Why did they come up with such a (in your opinion) ridiculously implausible, nay, impossible narrative?

This is not a serious question and doesn't deserve a serious answer. You do not speak for anyone but yourself and you certainly don't know nor have spoken to all the authorities you are trying to invoke.

Yes, it is a serious question and does deserve a serious answer, even if you are unwilling or unable to provide one. Simply dismissing it out of hand isn't fooling anyone. If crashing jets into buildings can't result in the building collapsing, why didn't thousands architects, demolition experts, crash scene investigators et al. around the world do a collective spit take and shout "********! when they saw the towers collapse?

Is it possible that your training instead of broadening your mind, has limited your capacity for critical thinking? If your synapses are burned in by being trained to react a certain way to certain stimuli, how is a a State education more beneficial to you than to the State? Isn't it in the State's best interest to have an obedient and hard-working citizen who thinks what the state wants you to think? So am I less indoctrinated with less State education, or more indoctrinated? Am I more curious by not being trained to think in a way that benefits the State, or less? Why am I less qualified to examine the evidence than you?

So, is that your way of saying that you haven't considered the possibility you might be wrong?

"Examine the evidence" all you want, just don't delude yourself that the "school of hard knocks" (whatever the hell that is) somehow magically endows you with the ability to examine a crash scene with anywhere near aptitude of an actual trained and experienced crash scene investigator.

BTW, only a Truther would use the term "hard-working citizen" in a pejorative sense

Beause the actions of the "terrorists" only give the West the excuse to invade. International terrorism wouldn't exist if we didn't invent it. As a species, it's time we grow up and smell the coffee. Why do the "terrorists" occupy themselves with beheading people and IEDs when all it takes is a couple jets to wipe out a sizeable section of a major western city? Why do their actions always requie military action which ALWAYS benefits corporate power?

Again, you have dodged the question. If the United States is a modern Roman Empire, where is Spartacus? You keep needling various posters with the term "projection", like a snarky little boy who just learned a new word, but it is you and the rest of the hapless Truth Movement who "project" when you assume if you aren't brave or ambitious enough to rise up against your (real or perceived) oppressors, NO ONE ELSE is, either.

 

[LSSBB]

It's coming. I'll remind you that after 11 years, you won't/can't even supply the scientific analysis to justify the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

I don't have to provide a scientific analysis. There is enough physical evidence to prove flight 93 crashed there, and the debris pattern is similar to other crashes enough to explain it was a plane. If you want a detailed scientific study of the crash, well do one, or trust trained accident investigators. There are some on answering your questions on this very thread! If you want to outdo them, go to town. As it is, I see no reason to believe you, because all you've presented is a theory with no evidence that can't be explained by the crash of flight 93.

 

[cjnewson88]

I see the ROOSD in a tube/funnel mechanism paradigm in action.

I don't think the 767 passed through a tube or funnel before it hit the tower.

Simply principles of physics escapes you. No wonder you cannot figure out 9/11.

Force = Mass multiplied by the Velocity

Learn it. Understand it. Now figure out what would happen to a 120,000kg mass moving at 245ms impacting a building.

 

[yankee451]

How's about we go where the evidence takes us, whether we like the destination or not, and not just invent scenarios out of thin air?

You asked for my opinion:

Why in your opinion did the conspirators decide to fake the plane crashes in ways that are (in your opinion) so howlingly obvious? If you are trying to frame someone for murder, you don't poison the murder victim and then claim that the victim was shot. In other words, if the conspirators wanted to mislead the country into war by claiming Al-Qaeda crashed jets into buildings, why didn't the conspirators simply...crash jets into buildings? Even if the jets had done what you think they should have done and basically bounced off the sides of the WTC, the resulting crash still would have resulted in hundreds dead and wounded on the streets on New York and still would have been perceived by the American public as the most dastardly terrorist attack in U.S. history and therefore there'd still be support for the ensuing war. Why risk giving the game away to those educated in the "school of hard knocks" by faking the attacks in such an inept way?

I gave it to you:

Have you ever considered the goal was the destruction of the whole WTC complex and to use the destruction as a pretext for long-planned invasions?

And you responded with:

How's about we go where the evidence takes us, whether we like the destination or not, and not just invent scenarios out of thin air?

You mean like 11 years of long-planed wars, invasions and occupations all because of the attacks on 9/11?

Like a religious fundamentalist who sees something they can't quite comprehend and says "God did it", you and other CTists see a horrible tragedy and your first thought is "The Government did it". You then work backwards to try to reverse engineer a theory that dovetails with your forgone conclusion.

And then what happened?

But why even try make us believe "impossible things"? If a jet crashing into a skyscraper and the ensuing fire can't cause the skyscraper to collapse, why did the conspirators choose such an outlandish narrative? Why not use bombs, even a small nuke? Why did they come up with such a (in your opinion) ridiculously implausible, nay, impossible narrative?

Are you asking for my opinion again or are you giving me yours? I think I know how this goes.

Yes, it is a serious question and does deserve a serious answer, even if you are unwilling or unable to provide one. Simply dismissing it out of hand isn't fooling anyone. If crashing jets into buildings can't result in the building collapsing, why didn't thousands architects, demolition experts, crash scene investigators et al. around the world do a collective spit take and shout "B***S***"! when they saw the towers collapse?

That question could be boiled down to "why do you think you're smarter than everyone else"? Say what you mean, but spare me the condesention and sarcasm if you expect to be taken seriously. Treat me with respect and I'll return in kind.

So, is that your way of saying that you haven't considered the possibility you might be wrong?

It never occurred to me I might be right until I found out no one else has a better explanation, but even so I second-guess myself all the time. Do you ever question your convictions?

"Examine the evidence" all you want, just don't delude yourself that the "school of hard knocks" (whatever the hell that is) somehow magically endows you with the ability to examine a crash scene with anywhere near aptitude of an actual trained and experienced crash scene investigator.

BTW, only a Truther would use the term "hard-working citizen" in a pejorative sense

Big kiss.

Again, you have dodged the question. If the United States is a modern Roman Empire, where is Spartacus? You keep needling various posters with the term "projection", like a snarky little boy who just learned a new word, but it is you and the rest of the hapless Truth Movement who "project" when you assume if you aren't brave or ambitious enough to rise up against your (real or perceived) oppressors, NO ONE ELSE is, either.

Stop attacking the messenger and start addressing the evidence. There are almost 40 pages of snarky comments so once again, big kiss.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You got lost in a sea of nonsequiters which could explain why you missed the answer to your post before you even posted it.

Nope. I was completely on topic. And directly answered the question with an answer that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

Ryan mackey modeled square boxes being struck by slugs of uniform density, thereby not proving anything other than he's dishonest.

Nope, not dishonest. Just saying it doesn't make it true. All it shows is that you don't understand what he or NIST were doing.

What they did was stated in the presentation I linked you to:

Ryan's and NIST's models are simplifications . They're simplifications of the real-world items made to demonstrate the amount of force exerted on the columns. They were simplified in order to isolate what's important and comprehend the effects.

Why do this?

Now, let's deal with his modeling vs. what you claim:

The column, for example:

THIS is how the columns were shaped:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/column-cross-section-page-45.png

This is his model:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MACKEY-Simple-Model-Section-Impact.png

He modeled them as elements 14" deep, which is the depth he used in the calculations. You post a picture that shows them as - surprise! - 14" x 13.5" box columns.

Gee... he was real far off, wasn't he?

Given the equation impulse = density * area * length, what part of his model disagrees with what you're showing? The fact that he models a "solid" and you a box column? I asked you before how that changes the calculations and you never answered.

Pay attention to NCSTAR 1-2B table 10-5:

... which are the pressure/impulse curves for column failure. In plain english, they show you what is needed to break a column. That already takes into account the material properties of the columns. In fact, it takes properties into consideration that truthers like you never seem to think about, such as loading.

The bottom line is that we have a graph of the failure points for given pressures and impulses. In order to calculate impulse, you need several figures, including the "length" (depth, whatever you want to call it) that a given force acts across. His model gets that length correct to within a half-inch. The image you posted confirms this. There's nothing different between his representation of the column and yours in regards to the calculation because they both indicate a figure of 14", +/- .5. More precision than necessary.

The fact that he didn't bother to hollow out his representation is irrelevant. 14 inches is the figure needed for the calculation, 14" x 13.5" are the dimensions shown in the image you posted. You showed that he got it right within half an inch.

A wing is not a "slug of uniform density" and the coliumns were not square boxes...

Actually, it's pretty accurate to simplify the model down to that; Ryan's figures don't deviate that bad from NIST's, and NIST did build in more than one fuel distribution case. Read NCSTAR 1-2B, and pay attention to those fuel and debris distributions. The fuel's dispersing across most of either tower at a bit over half a second. Considering that AA11 was moving at 650 feet per second and UA175 was going 790 ft/s, that means the fuel would've only been imparting whatever force it was doing so for two-thousandths of a second for AA11 and one-thousandths of a second for UA175. Really, is there any significant change of distribution for the time it takes to impart force to the column and the distance it does so?

But fine, change it. Make it a longer slug to change the impulse and make it longer. Or make it several discrete blobs. Just don't change the masses impacting, the velocities upon impact or the cumulative dimensions because we know those are right, given the fact we know the dimensions of the jets as well as the amount of fuel they were carrying. What changes?

Answer: Practically nothing significant. Again, remember: All you need according to the impulse/pressure curves is 800 PSI. Using Ryan's model, you've got What matters is the amount that's within the impact area of each column. No matter what, you're talking a 14" wide (for each column) by 16" high (for the wing height) over 4000 PSI for either flight (6800 for UA175).You could change the mass distribution - or heck, pretend that enough of it doesn't exist to bring the pressure down to have the figures and still have more than enough to fail the columns.

Anyway, the point is made: You're bringing up insignificant factors and ignoring the important ones.

... and by citing it you have only proven you don't have a leg to stand on.

Talk about projection. The entire problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You complain about the column representation when it is in fact correct for the calculation: A column with very close to a 14" impact width. And you complain about the fuel/wing modeling without understanding why it was done (read NCSTAR 1-2B). Above and beyond that, you offer zero alternative explanations, which demonstrates that you don't know how the columns failed either. Again: Ryan's and NIST's models are simplifications to demonstrate the amount of force exerted on the columns. They're simplifications in order to isolate what's important and comprehend the effects, as I said above. What he was showing and I'm repeating is that the columns easily fail at the impact speeds we're discussing. If you want to falsify the argument, you need to show that the columns would actually survive the impacts if they were solid and the fuel cloud distribution was different. You haven't. And I believe you can't; feel free to take a shot at proving me wrong there.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Heh... it just occured to me that by complaining about Ryan' modeling of a column as not a hollow box but rather a solid "bar", he's actually undermining his own argument. After all, a long, hollow, tube-like object would fail easier than a solid one.

Yeah, par for the course. But understanding that would require, well... actual understanding. Something truthers have never really had much of, as demonstrated above.

 

[yankee451]

[qimg]http://fromthepoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Homer-Facepalm.jpg[/qimg]

Simply principles of physics escapes you. No wonder you cannot figure out 9/11.

Force = Mass multiplied by the Velocity

Learn it. Understand it. Now figure out what would happen to a 120,000kg mass moving at 245ms impacting a building.

Irony.

How much mass was in the wing from the engine to the wing tip?

How much velocity was lost from the time the nose radome struck to the time the left engine entered the building?

Was the jet still intact at this point? Wasn't it disintegrating as well as slicing steel? Wouldn't that mean the wing from the outside of the engine to the tip wouldn't be attached to the rest of the plane at this point? How does that work in Randi World, can you show me the math that can 'splain it to stupid people like me?

 

[Mudcat]

Learn it. Understand it. Now figure out what would happen to a 120,000kg mass moving at 245ms impacting a building.

Not that I doubt you or anything, but how was the mass derived? Wouldn't they need to know the the weight and volume of every piece of luggage, the crew, passengers, terrorists and remaining fuel? Or is it an estimate?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Heh... it just occured to me that by complaining about Ryan' modeling of a column as not a hollow box but rather a solid "bar", he's actually undermining his own argument. After all, a long, hollow, tube-like object would fail easier than a solid one.

Yeah, par for the course. But understanding that would require, well... actual understanding. Something truthers have never really had much of, as demonstrated above.

Truthers in general have a real problem with simplification. This is why they can't handle the computer models; simulations, out of necessity (due to constraints on processing resources and/or available run time), are based on a set of simplifying assumptions. To return to the topic at hand, this is why the insistence on "real world" experiments; they think that because the real world can't be perfectly modeled in software, that there must therefore be some heretofore unknown phenomena that an experiment will demonstrate that proves them right and the model is wrong.

ETA: The irony here is that Truthers often resort to simplifications in an attempt to debunk the "official story"; see rake-on-rake, meatball-on-a-fork, Box Boy Gage, and "clunkity clunk". The problem with those, again, goes back to not understanding.

 

[yankee451]

Nope. I was completely on topic. And directly answered the question with an answer that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.



Nope, not dishonest. Just saying it doesn't make it true. All it shows is that you don't understand what he or NIST were doing.

Nonsense, they constructed a simple model that doesn't prove anything and you jokers wave it around like a banner.

It means nothing.

 

[beachnut]

Irony.

Your post are not irony, they are fantasy.

How much mass was in the wing from the engine to the wing tip?

33,000 pound of jet fuel, plus structure.

How much velocity was lost from the time the nose radome struck to the time the left engine entered the building?

Almost zero, because the aircraft had 11 times the energy required to break the shell for the shape of an aircraft. BINGO'

But feel free to take the video and calculate the velocity loss of an accelerating object. good luck

Was the jet still intact at this point? Wasn't it disintegrating as well as slicing steel? Wouldn't that mean the wing from the outside of the engine to the tip wouldn't be attached to the rest of the plane at this point? How does that work in Randi World, can you show me the math that 'splain it to stupid people like me?

The wing and jet fuel are going 590 mph, the terrorist had pushed up the engines, the engines were producing thrust until they were destroyed.

Think of the jets like shotgun blast. Can you do any physics?

Take a look at the ping-pong ball cutting a hole in a paddle? lol, you are proved wrong by physics, you can't do physics, so you remain in Fantasyland.

LOL, math? lol

A report you found, proves you are wrong, and a plane can enter the WTC.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
http://gizmodo.com/5981379/what-happens-when-a-900mph-ping-pong-serve-hits-
your-paddle
And you don't understand physics.
Then based on your Hard Knocks Common Sense, called fantasy kicks in, and you think
you debunked the MIT paper with silly comments. Comments which prove you don't
understand physics.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf


You already debunked yourself, and made silly comments to prove you don't do physics. You are science free.

 

[yankee451]

Some of the plane should have encountered a steel reinforced concrete floor or two which would have caused the following portion of the plane to detach and linger outside the building. Not unlike a bus or trailer running into an overpass.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

Or a head of iceberg on a lettuce slicer.

 

[cjnewson88]

Irony.

How much mass was in the wing from the engine to the wing tip?

I don't know exactly, but plenty enough to see the damage done;

How much velocity was lost from the time the nose radome struck to the time the left engine entered the building?

Negligible at that speed and mass.

Was the jet still intact at this point?

Why would this be a factor? An intact mass of 120,000kg is the same as a pile of debris with a mass of 120,000kg.

Wasn't it disintegrating as well as slicing steel?

See above.

Wouldn't that mean the wing from the outside of the engine to the tip wouldn't be attached to the rest of the plane at this point?

It wouldn't matter, it still has enough mass and velocity to do the observed damage.

How does that work in Randi World, can you show me the math that 'splain it to stupid people like me?

F=ma
E=1/2mv2

There's your math, you do the rest.

Not that I doubt you or anything, but how was the mass derived? Wouldn't they need to know the the weight and volume of every piece of luggage, the crew, passengers, terrorists and remaining fuel? Or is it an estimate?

There is probably an approximate weight of UA175 somewhere, but I just use an educated estimate. Empty weight of a 767-200 is around 80,000kg. Add 38,000L of fuel ( Jet A1 SP 0.82) = 31,000kg. Assume the average weight of the 65 on board was 75kg and they all bought 20kg of bags = 6,000kg + cargo could easily bring it up to around 120,000kg. The max all up weight of a 767-200 is over 140,000kg.

 

[beachnut]

Nonsense, they constructed a simple model that doesn't prove anything and you jokers wave it around like a banner.

It means nothing.

You don't do engineering, so you can't comprehend a model. No physics, no math, not able to comprehend 911. Your common sense is a fantasy generator.

It means you can't do engineering. Your inability to understand engineering models and physics lets you lie and speed an idiotic fantasy without thinking once about your failure.

Here is proof you don't understand the mechanics involved.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
Your comments prove you are not armed with the skills to understand the paper.

Some of the plane should have encountered a steel reinforced concrete floor or two which would have caused the following portion of the plane to detach and linger outside the building. Not unlike a bus or trailer running into an overpass.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

Or a head of iceberg on a lettuce slicer.

Clayton has no use for physics, like you.
How fast was the bus going? 600 mph?

 

[yankee451]

Nope. I was completely on topic. And directly answered the question with an answer that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.



Nope, not dishonest. Just saying it doesn't make it true. All it shows is that you don't understand what he or NIST were doing.

What they did was stated in the presentation I linked you to:
[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/VariousDebunkingStuff/MackeyP1a_zps50e94290.jpg[/qimg]

Ryan's and NIST's models are simplifications . They're simplifications of the real-world items made to demonstrate the amount of force exerted on the columns. They were simplified in order to isolate what's important and comprehend the effects.

Why do this?
[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/VariousDebunkingStuff/MackeyP1b_zps033ef8cb.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/VariousDebunkingStuff/MackeyP1c_zps975ca285.jpg[/qimg]

Now, let's deal with his modeling vs. what you claim:


He modeled them as elements 14" deep, which is the depth he used in the calculations. You post a picture that shows them as - surprise! - 14" x 13.5" box columns.

Gee... he was real far off, wasn't he?

Given the equation impulse = density * area * length, what part of his model disagrees with what you're showing? The fact that he models a "solid" and you a box column? I asked you before how that changes the calculations and you never answered.

Pay attention to NCSTAR 1-2B table 10-5:
[qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/NCSTAR1-2BFig10-5_zpsc08b4431.jpg[/qimg]

... which are the pressure/impulse curves for column failure. In plain english, they show you what is needed to break a column. That already takes into account the material properties of the columns. In fact, it takes properties into consideration that truthers like you never seem to think about, such as loading.

The bottom line is that we have a graph of the failure points for given pressures and impulses. In order to calculate impulse, you need several figures, including the "length" (depth, whatever you want to call it) that a given force acts across. His model gets that length correct to within a half-inch. The image you posted confirms this. There's nothing different between his representation of the column and yours in regards to the calculation because they both indicate a figure of 14", +/- .5. More precision than necessary.

The fact that he didn't bother to hollow out his representation is irrelevant. 14 inches is the figure needed for the calculation, 14" x 13.5" are the dimensions shown in the image you posted. You showed that he got it right within half an inch.



Actually, it's pretty accurate to simplify the model down to that; Ryan's figures don't deviate that bad from NIST's, and NIST did build in more than one fuel distribution case. Read NCSTAR 1-2B, and pay attention to those fuel and debris distributions. The fuel's dispersing across most of either tower at a bit over half a second. Considering that AA11 was moving at 650 feet per second and UA175 was going 790 ft/s, that means the fuel would've only been imparting whatever force it was doing so for two-thousandths of a second for AA11 and one-thousandths of a second for UA175. Really, is there any significant change of distribution for the time it takes to impart force to the column and the distance it does so?

But fine, change it. Make it a longer slug to change the impulse and make it longer. Or make it several discrete blobs. Just don't change the masses impacting, the velocities upon impact or the cumulative dimensions because we know those are right, given the fact we know the dimensions of the jets as well as the amount of fuel they were carrying. What changes?

Answer: Practically nothing significant. Again, remember: All you need according to the impulse/pressure curves is 800 PSI. Using Ryan's model, you've got What matters is the amount that's within the impact area of each column. No matter what, you're talking a 14" wide (for each column) by 16" high (for the wing height) over 4000 PSI for either flight (6800 for UA175).You could change the mass distribution - or heck, pretend that enough of it doesn't exist to bring the pressure down to have the figures and still have more than enough to fail the columns.

Anyway, the point is made: You're bringing up insignificant factors and ignoring the important ones.



Talk about projection. The entire problem is that you have no idea what you're talking about. You complain about the column representation when it is in fact correct for the calculation: A column with very close to a 14" impact width. And you complain about the fuel/wing modeling without understanding why it was done (read NCSTAR 1-2B). Above and beyond that, you offer zero alternative explanations, which demonstrates that you don't know how the columns failed either. Again: Ryan's and NIST's models are simplifications to demonstrate the amount of force exerted on the columns. They're simplifications in order to isolate what's important and comprehend the effects, as I said above. What he was showing and I'm repeating is that the columns easily fail at the impact speeds we're discussing. If you want to falsify the argument, you need to show that the columns would actually survive the impacts if they were solid and the fuel cloud distribution was different. You haven't. And I believe you can't; feel free to take a shot at proving me wrong there.

Then it shouldn't be too tough to apply the same figures to the 1/4 inch steel edges of the protruding sides of the square, or would that be too accurate? What would happen to the wing as it struck that edge? Anyone want to hazard a guess on that? God forbid, math? Seems to me it would slice through the wing before it impacted the face of the column, but doesn't that change the "uniform density slug"?

How can a jet striking like this:

...cause damage like this:

Furthermore, why doesn't the Purdue film show that interaction in their cartoon? Obviously it didn't pass through the wall, so why do they indicate it does? Propaganda is the best answer I can come up with, I mean we're talking Purdue here, either their engineers are corrupt or incompetent, which is it?

 

[LSSBB]

Nonsense, they constructed a simple model that doesn't prove anything and you jokers wave it around like a banner.

It means nothing.

Well, if an FEA is such a simple matter you should be able to whip one up yourself. Let's see it.