Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

Your "damage evidence" is unquantified nonsense based on faulty assumptions. The scenario you suggest would require millions of co-conspirators; basically everyone on the planet except you.
 
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...

There is math. You wouldn't understand it. Start with the Karim/Hoo Fatt FEA (link upthread a few posts).
 
yankee451 said:
Jedi handwave noted.
Click to expand...

LOL! I see what you did there. I like you better every day. You're funny.

Anyway, you "model" the plane as a "hollow aluminum tube" and model the WTC columns as a woodburning stove, then run it through about 1.2 seconds of "physics simulation" in your head.

How many footpounds, Steve? Hmmm?
 
alienentity said:
So how were they to be certain the jet would impact at precisely the points it did? That's some awesome precision flying....
Click to expand...


Perhaps this has been suggested (I haven't read much of this thread), but I think* the answer is that there are many buildings in New York that have had nano thermite attached to their support structure. That way when an airliner hits one of them the nano thermite can be set off to bring down the building.

I realize that there are going to be some people skeptical of this theory, but the theory explains a lot. It certainly is just about as plausible that if the super skilled nano thermite installer ninjas could install nano thermite in a few buildings then they could do it to a lot of buildings. A problem all along with the controlled demolition theories has been that it would have been difficult to get the pilots to hit exactly the right building at the right spot to mask the effects of the nano thermite. If the nano thermite is installed throughout New York city buildings this problem goes away.

* This sentence might exaggerate my faith in this theory a bit.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Were they part of the Purdue team?
Click to expand...

NO. There have been several different teams at several different universities doing several different FEA sims to answer several different questions. They all confirm, independently, that a 767 could penetrate the WTC.
 
yankee451 said:
Actually I'm using the same criteria the OP faithful use, albeit at least I have the damage evidence in my corner.
Click to expand...

interesting handwave, considering the evidence is all saying... the opposite of what you claim (noting yet again your continued conflation of assertions and evidence to support assertions).
 
davefoc said:
Perhaps this has been suggested (I haven't read much of this thread), but I think* the answer is that there are many buildings in New York that have had nano thermite attached to their support structure. That way when an airliner hits one of them the nano thermite can be set off to bring down the building.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi
davefoc said:
I realize that there are going to be some people skeptical of this theory,
Click to expand...

Just a 'teense
 
yankee451 said:
Erm...so where's the beef? (math)
Click to expand...

**snort!!* You continue to confirm you have no idea how much math is involved. You can't even wrap your head around my ridiculous oversimplified footpounds question.

Give it up, dude. Take up golf. This subject is apparently way beyond you.
 
I just converted a split (10 pin bowling). The bowl traveled south and the pin went east!
 
ttguy said:
I just converted a split (10 pin bowling). The bowl traveled south and the pin went east!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kid Eager said:
Is that really *all* you've got to say?

Did you bother reading the papers?
Click to expand...

Yes. They summarize the video using flowery language but try as I might I don't see the finite element analysis.

Can you hum a few bars?
 
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...

Just as valid as using a beercan and woodstove. Just as lacking in numeric processing.
 
yankee451 said:
Yes. They summarize the video using flowery language but try as I might I don't see the finite element analysis.

Can you hum a few bars?
Click to expand...

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.
"The FEA " was 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>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom