Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

ApolloGnomon said:
ARGKLEEJHAIOH RQHWH!!!@!!! For Sam Gangee's sake, man, get it through your shiney head! FEA is not a couple of calculations. Nobody can show you "the FEA." A document is not going to show you "the FEA."

An FEA study is an event, not a thing. Start with a big pile of numbers. Shove them into a physics program (they used LS-DYNA). Run the calculations. The software generates numeric results.

An FEA is a session of calculations run on a set of data using physics simulation software. It is not a "thing" and it cannot be put on a page with simple diagrams for you to apply low-effort reading.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Please link to the math, FEA or the aligned stars that Purdue used to arrive at their scientific visualization or withdraw the claim that any such evidence exists.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yankee451 said:
You're wrong. Please link to the math, FEA or the aligned stars that Purdue used to arrive at their scientific visualization or withdraw the claim that any such evidence exists.
Click to expand...

Another lie - the papers explain the FEA method used, and even showed you the models that they used within the method.

Admit it, you're totally out of your depth.
 
yankee451 said:
I'm a quick study. Perhaps you can cut and paste the equation that really gets your juices flowing.
Click to expand...

This flippant reply highlights the dishonesty behind your argument. If you don't actually want to learn anything, man up and say so.
 
Kid Eager said:
This flippant reply highlights the dishonesty behind your argument. If you don't actually want to learn anything, man up and say so.
Click to expand...

It also tells you how deep the gulf is between reality and his understanding. The LS-DYNA link above lists the hardware supported -- Cray and Sun SPARC is on the list, if that gives you any idea of "the math" involved.
 
yankee451 said:
So despite there being no math or physics to support the Purdue "scientific" video, why do you keep citing it as some sort of proof of something?
Click to expand...
ok, I cant stand it no more...

Crikey Y451, why dont you just follow through for once. It took me about 1 minute to find it:

The scientific simulation, the completion of which was announced last September, required several test runs before the researchers were satisfied; the final test run required more than 80 hours of high-performance computing. The simulation depicts how a plane tore through several stories of the World Trade Center north tower within a half-second and found that the weight of the fuel acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid, knocking out essential structural columns within the building and removing fireproofing insulation from other support structures. The simulation used lines and dots to show the aircraft and building during the event.
Click to expand...

Im going to break the rules and not add the link because to force your lazy backside to do your own homework. 80 Hours of high-performance computing is a lot of calculations, probably billions. :rolleyes:
 
Actually, I've never looked into this before. Whats really cool about it is they took the starting conditions and ran the simulation that resulted in a scenario that was very very similar to what was observed. Thats quite fantastic actually. Really really cool.

I guess its similar to how global warming models result in certain predictions are now being observed and coming true.
 
BadBoy said:
Actually, I've never looked into this before. Whats really cool about it is they took the starting conditions and ran the simulation that resulted in a scenario that was very very similar to what was observed. Thats quite fantastic actually. Really really cool.

I guess its similar to how global warming models result in certain predictions are now being observed and coming true.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "E" in JREF... I found them very interesting also.

I only linked the Powerpoint slideshow summary and the two most relevant papers explaining the detail behind it, but you could spend days (instead of a couple of hours) reading and digesting the rest of the related papers and more general modelling principles and approaches.
 
BadBoy said:
ok, I cant stand it no more...

Crikey Y451, why dont you just follow through for once. It took me about 1 minute to find it:



Im going to break the rules and not add the link because to force your lazy backside to do your own homework. 80 Hours of high-performance computing is a lot of calculations, probably billions. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So we just have to take their word for it? Or can you provide a link to the math. Please.
 
yankee451 said:
Exciting. So in your analogy you're using a bowling ball in place of a Boeing 767-200 and bowling pins in place of a 500 THOUSAND ton building. It's genius I tell you.
Click to expand...

Did the aircraft hit the whole building when it made the hole in the building?
 
yankee451 said:
So we just have to take their word for it? Or can you provide a link to the math. Please.
Click to expand...

"The math" would not only be massively complicated it would also be massively varied. Loads, forces, dimensions, material properties, stresses, strains ....

"The math" would probably occupy hundreds (thousands?) of sheets of printer paper.

There is no chance on earth you'd understand it. You know this, so constantly asking to see "the math" is just your very dishonest way of denying the arguments lined up against you without having to explain why.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
So we just have to take their word for it? Or can you provide a link to the math. Please.
Click to expand...
I develop software for a living. Though there probably are documents with the "Math" defined in them, the thing your really looking for is the very complicated simulator software program of which Im sure you wouldn't know where to start with, no doubt thousands of lines of code.

On top of that with a simulator such as this, a model of the plane and the important part of the building will be constructed. What that really means is millions of data objects, (probably held in a database, though that maybe too slow) describing every piece of material that would be important (that would have a significant impact on the simulation), its geometry and physical properties and all the initial conditions of all these objects (based on the planes orientation and speed etc).

The simulation program would then use physics calculations to calculate each and every objects behaviour (piece of material) as they start coming into contact with each other, given their properties. This calculation gets big very quickly as the outcome of each calculation of each point would feed into the behaviour calculations of all other points that would be affected. It would be a bit like calculating the weather by modelling all the air molecules and their interaction with each other.

So there is no page of calculations. Just billions of calculations made on millions of data points, probably in all going on in parallel, probably with multiple passes.

<SNIP>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yankee451 said:
I'm not the one claiming there's an FEA backing up the Purdue cartoon. My claim is that the math they claim they used is not available to the general public, as DGM learned the hard way a couple days ago. If the link existed (it doesn't) it's safe to say one of the OS faithful would have produced it by now.
Click to expand...

Do you have a computer that could run the calculations if you had access to them? If not, then the information is useless to you.
 
<SNIP>
OK let me insert a serious comment into this fun thread.

Two groups of people are reading this:
1) Those who, like me, comprehend the physics involved; AND
2) Those who don't. And, if in doubt, you don't.

The central issue is "would a plane impact cause the observed damage and penetrate the tower"?

For those who comprehend the physics the answer is a resounding "yes". AND it is so bleeding obvious that we don't need physics, maths, FEA or Santa Claus to explain it.

For those who don't do the physics thing OR only did school physics and didn't take it into their hearts - then:
1) the concept is incomprehensible AND
2) The maths or FEA wont help even if they can use them which is doubtful.

The biggest part of any of these applied physics problems is comprehending what is involved.

You need to do that - comprehend - before you can even think about using the tool kit.

And if you do comprehend there is no question.

Apart from the obvious issue - the best thing to cause a plane shaped hole in a relatively trivial steel lattice wall is a plane shaped object flying into the wall. And the obvious plane shaped object which can fly is...

...wait for it...

...a plane!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
david.watts said:
"math" seemed to be on topic.

Reread my post.
Click to expand...

"What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole" is on-topic.

What do you think of the OP's contention that planes did not create the plane-shaped holes, and they were instead created by multiple missile strikes by a type of missile which didn't enter service until many years after since its development proved so troublesome and which even then was not designed to have any such capability?

The OP doesn't feel the need to hold back on what he regards as the idiocy of alternative truther theories so please don't feel constrained to bite your tongue for politeness sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom