Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11
- Thread starter Trojan
- Start date
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
Heh.
And this is why I'm in training to be a mechanic and not a pilot. I only need to know its empty weight and its effective weight, not everything else.
Thanks for sharing that, though.
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,766
Last edited:
There you go, being anti-science, again.
Oops, it is not God, it is MIT. Beat again by MIT. School of Hard Knocks - zero, MIT 100. Better luck next time.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
You already failed on this. See your comments? They prove you will not, you can't understand the math to figure out there was 11 times more energy at impact than needed to break the WTC shell. You can't do the math, and reject it when you are presented the math.
You don't care if you have lies, you don't care if you make up stupid claims.
http://yankee451.com/about-me-2/
lol
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Then do the math. Tell me how the quarter inch edges changes the fact that the fuel moving at that speed would impart 800 psi to the column. Considering it would be covering that quarter of an inch in 30 microseconds (yes, 3x10^-5 sec... God forbid, math!), I have a little trouble thinking that it's going to disperse all that far away from the column.
Read Ryan's presentation and pay attention to the math. Since you're the one harping about it.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
This is what happens when all of those Hard Knocks are to the head.
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
Don't worry about it. Brain cells don't actually die when you look at stupid.
I'm more worried about gouging out my eyes in despair, actually.
After two ash-cans of Fosters... I might recover.
If he teams with Balsamo, the world might end...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=idx
What if he joins the pilots who can't fly? WARNING; visiting Balsamo's web site of serial stupidity, could lead to unknown complications, and threats of death.
Sorry. I had to cook dinner, forgot to warn there was a terminal-stupidity-singularity located at that URL. They are rare, but normal for 911 truth web sites.
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
Do you actually think all this dancing around you are doing in any way resembles substantive replies? Have you ever spent even a few minutes over the past 11 years pondering the conundrum of why the conspirators chose such a transparent, feeble and unwieldy scheme and why it managed to fool everyone but you?
Sorry, I must have missed it. Please refer to my essential questions above (hint: "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer).
You are working backwards again. You object to the war, we get, it, many of us object to it too, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 or not. The fact that we were unjustly attacked and we responded with an unjust war are not mutually exclusive ideas.
You'll have to remind me. I haven't had that sort of mindset since I was a child. At this point it's like trying to remember why I believed in Santa Claus.
Look, it's really quite simple. You seem to be implying that the real 9/11 perpetrators carried out the attacks in ways that make it screamingly obvious that the commonly accepted 9/11 narrative is largely untrue. So basically it was an evil plan, to be sure, but it was also a howlingly stupid plan. So why, in your opinion, would the perps have chosen this specific plan out of the myriad "false flags" they could have carried out? I'm not asking for evidence, just spitball, brainstorm, play devil's advocate.
If they were trying to frame Al Qaeda for flying jets into buildings, wouldn't it have been simpler to just fly jets into buildings?
That's quite an imaginative bit of boiling down you've done there. You are projecting again. If you are going to take me to task, do it for what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote.
"Treat me with respect and I'll return in kind."??? Irony, thy name is "yankee451"! BTW I promise to be less condescending when you learn how to spell "condescension".
It appears to be a "better explanation" to you.
Maybe you are right, but my own personal "better explanation" is that your ignorance of the highly technical and abstruse subjects you presume to lecture us on, coupled with your uninformed, biased views of history and politics has led you to erroneous conclusions regarding who did what to whom on 9/11.
My entire entire adult life has been spent questioning cherished beliefs. That's why I'm here. You're here to preach.
Do you always carry on with complete strangers on the internet like this? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Wait, attacking the messenger? You have a message
Sorry, I must have missed it. Please refer to my essential questions above (hint: "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer).
You are working backwards again. You object to the war, we get, it, many of us object to it too, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 or not. The fact that we were unjustly attacked and we responded with an unjust war are not mutually exclusive ideas.
You'll have to remind me. I haven't had that sort of mindset since I was a child. At this point it's like trying to remember why I believed in Santa Claus.
Look, it's really quite simple. You seem to be implying that the real 9/11 perpetrators carried out the attacks in ways that make it screamingly obvious that the commonly accepted 9/11 narrative is largely untrue. So basically it was an evil plan, to be sure, but it was also a howlingly stupid plan. So why, in your opinion, would the perps have chosen this specific plan out of the myriad "false flags" they could have carried out? I'm not asking for evidence, just spitball, brainstorm, play devil's advocate.
If they were trying to frame Al Qaeda for flying jets into buildings, wouldn't it have been simpler to just fly jets into buildings?
That's quite an imaginative bit of boiling down you've done there. You are projecting again. If you are going to take me to task, do it for what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote.
"Treat me with respect and I'll return in kind."??? Irony, thy name is "yankee451"! BTW I promise to be less condescending when you learn how to spell "condescension".
It appears to be a "better explanation" to you.
Maybe you are right, but my own personal "better explanation" is that your ignorance of the highly technical and abstruse subjects you presume to lecture us on, coupled with your uninformed, biased views of history and politics has led you to erroneous conclusions regarding who did what to whom on 9/11.
My entire entire adult life has been spent questioning cherished beliefs. That's why I'm here. You're here to preach.
Do you always carry on with complete strangers on the internet like this? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Wait, attacking the messenger? You have a message
Last edited:
Justin39640
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,202
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Ahh, you added more while I was responding.
You're reading far too much into the visualization than what's intended. The actual finite element analyses (FEA's) were run to determine if the perimeter, and possibly the core columns would fail from the impacts. That was achieved; they noted that they managed to successfully model the columns that were damaged. Nowhere in their studies were they getting into the minutiae of how the damage manifested on each column. You can read "Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1"a for more details.
Again, modeling: Isolate and concentrate on what you're studying. Popescu, Hoffman, and Irfanoglu were studying the dymanics of how the jetliners as a system were affecting the building as a system. That's what they achieved.
Besides, the minute detail of the damage that you're pointing out could simply be due to the very thing you were complaining about earlier: Non-uniform distribution of fuel and wing components upon disintegration. Those interactions are too chaotic to model, so why bother? The researchers were modeling column failure and general bulding/jetliner interaction, remember?
You should read the actual papers, not merely look dig beyond the detail the researchers were attempting to model. The primary one, I believe, is "A High-Quality Physically-Accurate Visualization of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center" b. Citations follow:
Incompetence on your part. You haven't established "propogada" (and in fact, have given no evidence for that accusation) nor have you even established that there's something wrong with either Ryan Mackey's model, NIST's modeling, or Purdue's study. All you're demonstrating is that you do not understand modeling, nor what it's intended to illuminate. You've looked at irrelevant detail (still waiting for how the quarter inch flanges on the columns changes the pressure or impulse).
Your core misapprehension on this specific topic is that there's something wrong with the descriptions of jet impact and column/structure failure. But you've demonstrated that you're drawing your suspicions not from a superior analysis, but from a lack of understanding of the magnitude of forces involved as well as a complete misunderstanding of what the modeling has illuminated. Your personal, fundamental misbelief (everyone else knows this by Ryan's term: Irreducible delusion) is that the collapses could not have happened as represented, and you've not even proven that your criticisms are accurate, let alone that you have a better explanation.
It behooves you to come up with better points than you already have. Harping over a quarter inch of flange (irrelevant, given the magnitude of the speed and mass impacting; see posts above) or misunderstanding what a model is trying to show you is no way to approach the topic. You need to gather evidence and build a real hypothesis. That's not what you've done here.
You're reading far too much into the visualization than what's intended. The actual finite element analyses (FEA's) were run to determine if the perimeter, and possibly the core columns would fail from the impacts. That was achieved; they noted that they managed to successfully model the columns that were damaged. Nowhere in their studies were they getting into the minutiae of how the damage manifested on each column. You can read "Using Numerical Simulations and Engineering Reasoning under Uncertainty: Studying the Collapse of WTC-1"a for more details.
Again, modeling: Isolate and concentrate on what you're studying. Popescu, Hoffman, and Irfanoglu were studying the dymanics of how the jetliners as a system were affecting the building as a system. That's what they achieved.
Besides, the minute detail of the damage that you're pointing out could simply be due to the very thing you were complaining about earlier: Non-uniform distribution of fuel and wing components upon disintegration. Those interactions are too chaotic to model, so why bother? The researchers were modeling column failure and general bulding/jetliner interaction, remember?
You should read the actual papers, not merely look dig beyond the detail the researchers were attempting to model. The primary one, I believe, is "A High-Quality Physically-Accurate Visualization of the September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center" b. Citations follow:
- a Irfanoglu, A. (2012), Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 27: 65–76
- b Popescu, Hoffman, Irfanoglu, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics Volume 14 Issue 4, July 2008 Pages 937-947. Link: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cstech/1671/
Incompetence on your part. You haven't established "propogada" (and in fact, have given no evidence for that accusation) nor have you even established that there's something wrong with either Ryan Mackey's model, NIST's modeling, or Purdue's study. All you're demonstrating is that you do not understand modeling, nor what it's intended to illuminate. You've looked at irrelevant detail (still waiting for how the quarter inch flanges on the columns changes the pressure or impulse).
Your core misapprehension on this specific topic is that there's something wrong with the descriptions of jet impact and column/structure failure. But you've demonstrated that you're drawing your suspicions not from a superior analysis, but from a lack of understanding of the magnitude of forces involved as well as a complete misunderstanding of what the modeling has illuminated. Your personal, fundamental misbelief (everyone else knows this by Ryan's term: Irreducible delusion) is that the collapses could not have happened as represented, and you've not even proven that your criticisms are accurate, let alone that you have a better explanation.
It behooves you to come up with better points than you already have. Harping over a quarter inch of flange (irrelevant, given the magnitude of the speed and mass impacting; see posts above) or misunderstanding what a model is trying to show you is no way to approach the topic. You need to gather evidence and build a real hypothesis. That's not what you've done here.
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I did. The answer is: You don't understand what they're modeling.
Now stop being impatient and actually read the information you're given.
ETA: While you're at it, I'm still wondering why you think the quarter inch flange matters in the impulse calculation. You've not answered that. I gave you my work; where's yours?
Last edited:
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
I have read the material, years ago. They don't prove anything, as you even just said.
The papers you hid behind like your mother's skirt don't answer my question; you "dodged" me as you might say, so I'll repeat; how can a wing striking on the right corner of the column in a head on collision, damage it as if it struck it from the side?
The damage is the same on the left sides of both towers:
So just answer the question - and please, use layman's terms for we simple folk.
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
I'm marveling why you think it doesn't - the "flanges" are the whole sides of the columns protruding beyond the face plate which acts as a lateral brace for the two sides. None of the models address the fact that the wing would be striking sequentially, from the right corner to the left corner, one laterally braced knife at a time. Your "work" didn't prove anything.
A 767 did it. RADAR proves it, and not a thing you do can change that fact. You can't do the math. You can't do reality.
Love it, you prove again a 767 did it. You can't stop debunking yourself. Is this simple enough. You have nonsense, and it shows.
Got some math to prove your fantasy?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Chapter-IV-Aircraft-Impact.pdf
Here is your silly comments added to a real math. You failed to debunk the math. Look at your comments, they prove you don't understand physics. good luck
I thought you said the wing cut the steel like a knife thought butter? The wing did not cut all the steel it hit. Darn, you lied? Looks more like a hammer against some metal. Your analogy was plagiarized from 911 truth.
lol - good luck
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
That's not what I said. I said they modeled systemic impact and column failure, not the minutiae you were trying to draw from it.
You stop right there with your arrogance. I was being fair and providing the links for your edification so that you could have a chance to teach yourself more about the Purdue studies. Information that would've kept you from making the mistakes about their work that you did in the post above.
You can that arrogance and talk respectfully from here on out, or you will go on ignore.
No. You were answered directly. I told you that you didn't understand the Purdue modeling. I also told you that any damage patterns you saw could be nothing more than the result of nonuniform distribution of wing elements and fuel, a point you yourself were trying to make above with your misunderstanding of Ryan's presentation.
Answered. See prior paragraph.
The simple answer is that the plane hit them. Why you think columns bending inward towards the fuselage of the plane is unusual is strange, and I have no explanation for why you think it's significant. Why you think one side of the column should be undamaged is similarly beyond me. Either way, there's nothing about your observations that disputes the jetliners impacts.
ETA:
Which doesn't stop the fuel and wing debris from impacting the column and transferring momentum beyond it's capacity to absorb it. As I pointed out, that quarter of an inch you're obsessing about results in the fuel and/or wing elements striking the face of the column 30 microseconds - 0.00030 sec - after striking the flanges. The degree that it changes the impulse or pressure calculation is insignificant. I told you that. And I didn't throw that figure out there for you to ignore.
And what of the floor pull-in upon impact? And the cross bracing? Could that not also turn the columns inward and the outer sides outward? I don't know if that's what really happened or not - as I said above, the chaotic nature of the wing breaking up could be the cause too, or both combined - but I know this: If you're going into that amount of detail, you'd better understand that the columns were not standing all by themselves, but were attached to the floor trusses and cross bracing on the exterior. And didn't act in isolation, but in reaction to not just the jet impacting, but also to what the internal structure was doing.
You need to stop paying attention to the elements that don't matter. The flanges do not matter. You are isolating and concentrating on an irrelevant element. As I told you above.
That's because you haven't read it properly. You can claim you've "read the material years ago", but the way you present your objections demonstrate that you haven't. You might have read truther claims, but you sure as heck haven't studied the original information. Your misunderstanding of the Purdue study is proof of that. So's your lack of comprehension of what Ryan Mackey was writing.
Last edited:
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
"One at a time", eh? Okay Einstein, what therefore was the elapsed time between the wing root hitting the first column and the wing tip hitting the last?
From that, what was the time interval between each column being hit?
For bonus points: What direction was the net vector of the force on the columns? The answer to this provides the answer to your photos with the blatant misdirection/mislabelling.