Moderated What Caused the Plane Shaped Hole

[TheRedWorm]

Purdue calculations please.

Why do you want them?

 

[Robrob]

Huh...

A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue shows that it was the weight of the fuel combined with the fire, and not the aircraft itself, that caused the most damage to the buildings. Only a few parts of the airplane, such as the titanium jet propeller shafts, actually continued through the building, the researchers say.

 

[yankee451]

Not the Bueller but the others I can. I'm just waiting for you to give me a reason to.

You obviously have no idea about simple physics. If you did you would have supported your claims back on page one.

We're still waiting.

Hold your breath.

In the meantime I remind the class that you have been proven wrong on the claim that Purdue provided calculations for their cartoon, so why do you people keep citing it as if it's proof of something?

If my evidence is worthless without the math, then so is theirs, but at least 10s of thousands of people haven't been murdered over my evidence.

 

[yankee451]

Why do you want them?

So I can study them.

Produce the link please or stop citing it.

 

[DGM]

Purdue calculations please.

You first. So far you have not supported one claim you've made, except to say it's simple physics.

We're waiting.

 

[Robrob]

Odd...

In the simulation, the plane crashes into the building's concrete support columns, which were reinforced with steel bars. In this simulation the columns were assumed to be "spirally reinforced," a technique popular in the 1940s in which steel bars were wound around columns in a helical shape. The coiled steel provided added strength to the columns and probably is responsible for saving many lives, Sozen said.

 

[yankee451]

You first. So far you have not supported one claim you've made, except to say it's simple physics.

We're waiting.

I withdraw the claim of "simple physics".

Now it's your turn.

 

[DGM]

Hold your breath.

In the meantime I remind the class that you have been proven wrong on the claim that Purdue provided calculations for their cartoon, so why do you people keep citing it as if it's proof of something?

You need to stop lying. Where did you prove this?

The class is watching you squirm.

 

[yankee451]

You first. So far you have not supported one claim you've made, except to say it's simple physics.

We're waiting.

Give us the Purdue link to the calculations or withdraw the claim they provided calculations to support their model.

 

[yankee451]

You need to stop lying. Where did you prove this?

The class is watching you squirm.

Link to the Purdue calculations please.

 

[Robrob]

I withdraw the claim of "simple physics".

Now it's your turn.

You get caught in a lie and you simply "withdraw" the lie?

Okay....

 

[DGM]

Give us the Purdue link to the calculations or withdraw the claim they provided calculations to support their model.

Give us your calculations or withdraw your claims.

See how that works. Funny thing, I have nothing to lose.

 

[yankee451]

You need to stop lying. Where did you prove this?

The class is watching you squirm.

Where are the calculations?

Provide the link that proves they backed up their model with the calculations or withdraw the claim that the "math" supports the official tripe.

For folks who haven't seen it, Ace Baker went to Purdue and asked to see the calculations, but alas they were not forthcoming. Here's the video:

What Planes?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Purdue calculations please.

Leading edge velocity, please.

 

[DGM]

I withdraw the claim of "simple physics".

Now it's your turn.

Sorry I missed this.

So you now admit your evidence is not based on science? It's just your lay person opinion?

 

[yankee451]

Give us your calculations or withdraw your claims.

See how that works. Funny thing, I have nothing to lose.

Funny how that works. You just spent how many pages calling my stuff worthless and yet you don't even have the photographic evidence to back up your story.

Give me the link to the Purdue calculations please.

 

[Robrob]

Funny how that works. You just spent how many pages calling my stuff worthless and yet you don't even have the photographic evidence to back up your story.

Photos?

 

[yankee451]

Sorry I missed this.

So you now admit your evidence is not based on science? It's just your lay person opinion?

Layperson opinions is all this conversation has ever been, but you folks behave as if you've got science to back you up. You don't, but at least I have the photographic evidence in my favor.

Give me the link to the Purdue calculations.

 

[yankee451]

Why do you continue to tell lies?

Demonstrate once in theis thread where I have "claimed victory".

Better yet:

What was the speed of the leading edge of the wing of the 767 that was observed to impact the tower at the point that it was observed to impact the tower?

As stated numerous times before, use the NIST figure.

Can you provide the Purdue calculations?

 

[Robrob]

Layperson opinions is all this conversation has ever been, but you folks behave as if you've got science to back you up. You don't, but at least I have the photographic evidence in my favor.

Give me the link to the Purdue calculations.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you the one claiming to have evidence of something contrary to the null hypothesis?

Just saying...