Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[Dog Town]

The mind boggles.

NO!

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

We cannot hand you a link to a low-effort colorful website with "top ten reasons why a freaking plane is the answer to what made a plane shaped hole."

We cannot hand you a link "the FEA" because it isn't a thing, it was an event: a massive, multi-departmental computational event modeling large numbers of individual objects over a short period of time at high temporal resolution. The input for any FEA is a massive pile of numbers. The output for any FEA is a massive pile of numbers. The thing called "the FEA" itself is just a massive number of CPU cycles using specialized software to crunch the input and generate an output.

What is it you think you're asking for when you demand "the link" to "the FEA?"

• The input? Try starting with a metalurgical reference book. Continue until educated.
• The computation? There are several pieces of software used to do this, and sometimes people write their own. Most of them won't run on your laptop. Some of them won't run on your desktop. A few of them will only run on massive mainframes, or networks of large computers, or network clusters of server-grade multi-processor computers operating in parallel. The Purdue study ran on several different large network computer resources.
• The output? What, you want gigabytes of unintelligible numbers? Why? Will you be writing your own code to interrogate the data? Because that's what FEA researchers do.

There are entire departments of universities who teach this. WTC simulations became the flavor-of-the-month in computer departments for a while. One of the FEA report papers I read over the years mentioned that they had a hard time getting backing from their advisors because it had been done over and over by that point, so the researchers had to find a new approach.

You think you can Jedi-wave away the Purdue simulation as "a cartoon" without contemplating the implications, but here they are: Every single member of every single team of every single 9/11 related FEA project in every single university needs to "be in on" the conspiracy. Forever. Because all it would take would be one handful of people modeling the impact and getting "oh, the plane bounced off!" results and the game would be up. You have no idea how desperate grad students are for thesis material; just because 9/11 impact and WTC collapse simulations have been "done before" doesn't mean a couple of students won't manage to run a simulation on lark 5, 10, 20 or 50 years in the future.

All the FEA reports I've read are consistent in that the airplanes were found to have more than enough kinetic energy to penetrate the outer columns (which only present about 40% mechanical opacity to the building anyway, as measured from easily googled dimensions of the column width and spacing and as seen in your very avatar.

You make the statement that the Purdue FEA is "a cartoon" and that the results were somehow forced to fit, but you can't prove it. The Purdue FEA is consistent with computer models generated at other universities. The Purdue FEA was rigorously modeled with real-world mechanical experiments to validate both the properties of the metals involved and the interactions between them. The Purdue FEA was an interdepartmental project done as part of several different Masters and Doctoral theses, with departmental oversight and fact checking.

The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You make the claim that every single member of every single computer science department in every single university is in on the conspiracy, forever and ever and ever.

And then you insist we send you "the link" to "the FEA." That's like an Apollo hoax believer demanding we send them a link to "the math" proving that NASA really did the calculations to send rockets to the moon. You make an asinine demand based on your own lack of knowledge, because you think 2 badly written and uncitationed pages of back-of-the-envelope napkin scratchings on your upthread link are an actual FEA.

You have no idea what an FEA is. Until you do, the Purdue findings (and all the others) stand unchallenged.

 

[yankee451]

We cannot hand you a link to a low-effort colorful website with "top ten reasons why a freaking plane is the answer to what made a plane shaped hole."

We cannot hand you a link "the FEA" because it isn't a thing, it was an event: a massive, multi-departmental computational event modeling large numbers of individual objects over a short period of time at high temporal resolution. The input for any FEA is a massive pile of numbers. The output for any FEA is a massive pile of numbers. The thing called "the FEA" itself is just a massive number of CPU cycles using specialized software to crunch the input and generate an output.

There are entire departments of universities who teach this. WTC simulations became the flavor-of-the-month in computer departments for a while. One of the FEA report papers I read over the years mentioned that they had a hard time getting backing from their advisors because it had been done over and over by that point, so the researchers had to find a new approach.

You think you can Jedi-wave away the Purdue simulation as "a cartoon" without contemplating the implications, but here they are: Every single member of every single team of every single 9/11 related FEA project in every single university needs to "be in on" the conspiracy. Forever. Because all it would take would be one handful of people modeling the impact and getting "oh, the plane bounced off!" results and the game would be up. You have no idea how desperate grad students are for thesis material; just because 9/11 impact and WTC collapse simulations have been "done before" doesn't mean a couple of students won't manage to run a simulation on lark 5, 10, 20 or 50 years in the future.

All the FEA reports I've read are consistent in that the airplanes were found to have more than enough kinetic energy to penetrate the outer columns (which only present about 40% mechanical opacity to the building anyway, as measured from easily googled dimensions of the column width and spacing and as seen in your very avatar.

You make the statement that the Purdue FEA is "a cartoon" and that the results were somehow forced to fit, but you can't prove it. The Purdue FEA is consistent with computer models generated at other universities. The Purdue FEA was rigorously modeled with real-world mechanical experiments to validate both the properties of the metals involved and the interactions between them. The Purdue FEA was an interdepartmental project done as part of several different Masters and Doctoral theses, with departmental oversight and fact checking.

The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You make the claim that every single member of every single computer science department in every single university is in on the conspiracy, forever and ever and ever.

And then you insist we send you "the link" to "the FEA." That's like an Apollo hoax believer demanding we send them a link to "the math" proving that NASA really did the calculations to send rockets to the moon. You make an asinine demand based on your own lack of knowledge, because you think 2 badly written and uncitationed pages of back-of-the-envelope napkin scratchings on your upthread link are an actual FEA.

You have no idea what an FEA is. Until you do, the Purdue findings (and all the others) stand unchallenged.

Is that a long way to go to say you can't point to a single report that uses "math" to prove a jet caused the damage? Can you at least point to some that you think tried to prove something?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yeah, but I won't. Teaching algebra to a goldfish is a losing proposition. I'm pretty sure you don't read response posts in any great depth, so sending you a link to one of the many thesis reports would just waste electrons.

 

[yankee451]

Yeah, but I won't. Teaching algebra to a goldfish is a losing proposition. I'm pretty sure you don't read response posts in any great depth, so sending you a link to one of the many thesis reports would just waste electrons.

Evasion noted.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Right. So you can provide your evidence that the Purdue FEA is flawed, then? With details, citations, external references, corroborating details?

Again, I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Translation: don't be curious; believe what you're told.

No, try again.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I added this paragraph to the above quoted post while you were posting a one-line dismissive no-effort response, so you missed it.

----------------
What is it you think you're asking for when you demand "the link" to "the FEA?"

The input? Try starting with a metalurgical reference book. Continue until educated.
The computation? There are several pieces of software used to do this, and sometimes people write their own. Most of them won't run on your laptop. Some of them won't run on your desktop. A few of them will only run on massive mainframes, or networks of large computers, or network clusters of server-grade multi-processor computers operating in parallel. The Purdue study ran on several different large network computer resources.
The output? What, you want gigabytes of unintelligible numbers? Why? Will you be writing your own code to interrogate the data? Because that's what FEA researchers do. The Purdue data was run through a program to turn those numbers into a visual presentation, but that is hardly the only output generated, and the "cartoon" as you call it was created by one team based on the work of another team.
----------------

Please respond to this question, yankee. What is it you think you would get and how do you think you would use it?

 

[Dash80]

Haven't ignored them, just starting at the beginning.

Well, at the beginning you have an aircraft witnessed hitting the North Tower. An aircraft reported hijacked, an aircraft and its passengers never seen again. Seems like a good place to start.

I gather you like to read the last chapter before you get to the end of a book?

Actually I am reading a very interesting book about holocaust deniers and their tactics. Replace "holocaust deniers" with "no planers" and it sums you up pretty nicely.

 

[Craig4]

Why do you keep asking simple questions?

I offered to pay handsomely to prove my theories right or wrong. Doing either would be more than the official organs have ever accomplished, truther or truster. He flaked on me because I was paying bargain basement prices and got what I paid for. But I was willing to spend far more if I could find any engineer or firm with the guts to prove me wrong or right. I approached many, even taking out ads and offering many thousands of dollars to prove me wrong, and can you guess why no one wanted to take the gig?

Because they were afraid of the quote "political fallout", of which there would be NONE if I was wrong. There can be only one reason a firm wouldn't want to take my money to prove me wrong, an act that would simultaneously reinforce the "official story". What political fallout could they possibly be afraid of if they were to prove some crackpot wrong?

You get three guesses.

Well, your "work" thus far has been a joke. I can see why a reputable firm would not want to associate with this project. They would have a hard time being taken seriously in the future if their name was all over the internet.

 

[Dash80]

Well, your "work" thus far has been a joke. I can see why a reputable firm would not want to associate with this project. They would have a hard time being taken seriously in the future if their name was all over the internet.

I suspect those who yankee claims he's approached couldn't take him seriously either. Particularly if he banged on about wood stoves to them.

yankee: wood stoves blah blah teevee blah blah no planes blah missiles blah blah crash test.

engineer: *hysterical laughter*

yankee: ... I... I'm being serious here.

engineer: *still laughing* Bye!

I imagine that's pretty much how it goes.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Perspective:

Ok. Perspective. I see that the column end you indicated is bent to the right. I also see that the column end immediately above it and one space to the left is bent in the opposite direction.



So now I'm pondering two scenarios. One where hard parts in the wing struck some columns off centre or another where a specially reinforced cruise missile flew across the face of the building, rattling its wing against the columns like a stick against a picket fence, then another did the same in the opposite direction before vanishing.



Guess which one I haven't immediately rejected as ludicrous.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I suspect those who yankee claims he's approached couldn't take him seriously either. Particularly if he banged on about wood stoves to them.

yankee: wood stoves blah blah teevee blah blah no planes blah missiles blah blah crash test.

engineer: *hysterical laughter*

yankee: ... I... I'm being serious here.

engineer: *still laughing* Bye!

I imagine that's pretty much how it goes.

Actually... it sounds like one was smart enough to cash the check first.

 

[Craig4]

Actually... it sounds like one was smart enough to cash the check first.

Funny stuff.

 

[tsig]

Considering TeeVee waves are what true believers are basing their beliefs on, they really do pull them out of thin air. But here we examine the evidence:

Looking at the North Tower and the South Tower, why would there be the same number of columns between the beginning of the damage and what looks like a hole left by an explosive?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns-2.jpg[/qimg]

Aren't those pics you're showing from the Tee Vee?

 

[Craig4]

Aren't those pics you're showing from the Tee Vee?

You see, the only video evidence allowed is that which he uses to support his ideas (note I did not say theory). All the other video evidence is wrong.

The irony that he's using video of the location of where the plane hit the building to prove that no plane hit the building is not lost on me.

 

[Dash80]

Actually... it sounds like one was smart enough to cash the check first.

And yankee thinks we are the gullible ones...

 

[tsig]

Why do you keep asking simple questions?

I offered to pay handsomely to prove my theories right or wrong. Doing either would be more than the official organs have ever accomplished, truther or truster. He flaked on me because I was paying bargain basement prices and got what I paid for. But I was willing to spend far more if I could find any engineer or firm with the guts to prove me wrong or right. I approached many, even taking out ads and offering many thousands of dollars to prove me wrong, and can you guess why no one wanted to take the gig?

Because they were afraid of the quote "political fallout", of which there would be NONE if I was wrong. There can be only one reason a firm wouldn't want to take my money to prove me wrong, an act that would simultaneously reinforce the "official story". What political fallout could they possibly be afraid of if they were to prove some crackpot wrong?

You get three guesses.

Can we get any proof of that?

 

[abaddon]

I suspect those who yankee claims he's approached couldn't take him seriously either. Particularly if he banged on about wood stoves to them.

yankee: wood stoves blah blah teevee blah blah no planes blah missiles blah blah crash test.

engineer: *hysterical laughter*

yankee: ... I... I'm being serious here.

engineer: *still laughing* Bye!

I imagine that's pretty much how it goes.

That's exactly what would happen if such a thing occurred in my office.

 

[Iamme]

Yankee, can you run us thru exactly what you think transpired before 911 and on 911?...to have caused the general public to be faked out?
.
It has been brought up about eyewitnesses, videos and photos people likely have that were taken by private people...not just by tv, what became of the jets supposedly lost that day, and what became of the passengers lost that day?
.
Do you believe that everything i brought up is made up? Since all our information comes from a media of some sort, do you believe every single thing was a made up story? Like so?:
There were no jets lost?
There were never passengers on any jets. Nobody can prove any passenger list was real.
There are no private photos or videos.
.
In all honesty, if these things would be your answer, i cant dispute such claims as i have never been given private photos or videos by people i know and trust. Any such photo or videos shown say on the internet might be a lie, right?
And if i caled up the airline company and asked them if those jets were real and had passengers and they died...or otherwise cannot be accounted for...the airline is also in on the conspiracy, under some threat by the govt?
.
Am i on the right track of your thinking?
.
But i did think of one thing that might be a little too much to believe a conspiracy over and that would be if we got a passenger list from the airline company. Then looked into actual newspaper obits, from hometown newspapers likely from various cities. I seriously doubt all such obits, in numerous newspapers, would be faked, or not even list the person who supposedly died.
.
I just clicked on ``private images......`` of the 911 crashes, but cant prove these images are from private people. But cant see how any of this could be faked, the way they show the planes in relation to the building.
.
For anyone interested, google exactly this: 9-11 Research: Aircraft Remains
.
It seems preposterous to deny planes and passengers, more than likely, if one does the research i mention...if you are bored with nothing better to do.
.
The only other option is to admit the planes hit, but thermite or other was used to ensure the buildings came down.
.
So Yankee, in a nutshell, what do you believe about 911 exactly, from why it was carried out, to how things were faked?