Merged No Planer calls for scientific study / Missiles of 9/11

yankee451 said:
He used a uniform slug in place of the wing, and a square box in place of the column. A jet's wing is no more a slug of uniform density than the columns were square boxes. He gave us a math problem but didn't answer any burning 9/11 questions, did he?
Click to expand...
So you just skimmed it and didn't actually read it.

These questions (and reasoning for why) were answered.

You're kinda lazy, huh?
 
yankee451 said:
Then give me a clue. Why did the water balloon only burst a small hole,
Click to expand...

Have you not been reading anything we have been posting? Why would you expect the results to be the same across the entirety of the damage pattern when there are changes to each object involved in the collision? Does not the wing get wider from wingtip to fuselage? Aren't there floors behind some of the perimeter columns where the wing struck? Fuel in some areas? Other components? Come on yankee, geez.

Like I said. Your applications/understanding of the "laws of physics" in this instance are minimizing the complexity of the two objects that collided.

yankee451 said:
why wouldn't the whole water balloon do the same,
Click to expand...
See above...

yankee451 said:
and why would the column sides be bent in an entirely different direction?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/animated-arrow-burst1.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You honestly can't understand that the wings (being at an angle to the face of the perimeter columns) of a forward moving 767 has the potential of said angled wing to pull the plates of some of the columns inward and to the right?

Are you kidding me?

:boggled:
 
Gamolon said:
Have you not been reading anything we have been posting? Why would you expect the results to be the same across the entirety of the damage pattern when there are changes to each object involved in the collision? Does not the wing get wider from wingtip to fuselage? Aren't there floors behind some of the perimeter columns where the wing struck? Fuel in some areas? Other components? Come on yankee, geez.

Like I said. Your applications/understanding of the "laws of physics" in this instance are minimizing the complexity of the two objects that collided.


See above...



You honestly can't understand that the wings (being at an angle to the face of the perimeter columns) of a forward moving 767 has the potential of said angled wing to pull the plates of some of the columns inward and to the right?

Are you kidding me?

:boggled:
Click to expand...

And you accuse me of over simplifying.
 
yankee451 said:
No, since the construction of a wing is designed for flying through the air, it is not optimal for flying through steel skyscrapers at any speed.

I suspect this is why a heavily braced steel "plow" was used to cut a car in half, and not a few layered pieces of aluminum sheeting.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Plow1-PM.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

A car is somewhat different in construction than a skyscraper.
 
yankee451 said:
And you accuse me of over simplifying.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

When you think that a water balloon = a 767 jet wing, yeah you're over simplifying.

;)

Go read the paper that's been linked for you and come back with your refutation. If you can that is.
 
No Planer calls for scientific study

yankee451 said:
The building construction was not similar, the aircraft were not similar and the crashes were not similar. One has evidence of a plane, the other does not.
Click to expand...

Mass and speed is what I am asking about.

Both have evidence of a plane.
 
SUSpilot said:
Mass and speed is what I am asking about.

Both have evidence of a plane.
Click to expand...

I take it you're recommending I don't conduct a scientific experiment because mass and speed are all that matters. Even a car wouldn't stand a chance to the wing if the building couldn't eh?

No, there is no evidence of a plane, but there is evidence of missiles:

North-Tower-Gash_small.jpg
 
yankee451 said:
I take it you're recommending I don't conduct a scientific experiment because mass and speed are all that matters. Even a car wouldn't stand a chance to the wing if the building couldn't eh?

No, there is no evidence of a plane, but there is evidence of missiles:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/North-Tower-Gash_small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

More proof you reject reality and embrace fantasy woo. You present no evidence, just personal incredulity. Yet anther failure from the Google U graduate. :rolleyes:
 
yankee451 said:
I take it you're recommending I don't conduct a scientific experiment because mass and speed are all that matters. Even a car wouldn't stand a chance to the wing if the building couldn't eh?

No, there is no evidence of a plane, but there is evidence of missiles:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/North-Tower-Gash_small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Looks like the outline of a plane to me.
 
AdMan said:
Yes, and definitely not of "missiles".
Click to expand...

Where's the evidence of a plane. The cessna was hanging out the window, but the 767 disappeared, all the way to the wingtips. Just ask the geniuses at Purdue.

A hole is evidence of a hole, not a jet.
 
yankee451 said:
Where's the evidence of a plane. The cessna was hanging out the window, but the 767 disappeared, all the way to the wingtips. Just ask the geniuses at Purdue.

A hole is evidence of a hole, not a jet.
Click to expand...

What is a plane-shaped hole evidence of?
 
AdMan said:
What is a plane-shaped hole evidence of?
Click to expand...

You going to show me ink spots next?

It's a hole. The power of suggestion tells you it looks like a plane. The research I've done tells me it looks like a bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles stuck from many angles, some bending, gouging and twisting columns, and some big tomahawks detonated right on the face, pushing the damage inwards.

It's a hole. The power of observation tells me there are no floors, else how could those big wall panels be bent in. History and general "google u" tells me buildings are usually gutted and stripped of anything of value or that could become a projectile before demolition, so common sense would put two and two together when one notices the elephant in the room. With missing floors, how could these buildings be fully occupied?

Center-hole-missing-floors-.jpg


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spandrels-bent-back-small.jpg

Edited by LashL: 
Changed oversized image to link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yankee451 said:
The research I've done tells me it looks like a bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles stuck from many angles, some bending, gouging and twisting columns, and some big tomahawks detonated right on the face, pushing the damage inwards.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? "A bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles" and none of the many thousands of observers, not to mention the cameras, saw them?

Laughable nonsense that can be easily dismissed.
 
Last edited:
No Planer calls for scientific study

yankee451 said:
I take it you're recommending I don't conduct a scientific experiment because mass and speed are all that matters. Even a car wouldn't stand a chance to the wing if the building couldn't eh?

No, there is no evidence of a plane, but there is evidence of missiles:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/North-Tower-Gash_small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I'm not recommending anything, other than, if you do manage to pull it off, that no one be near the point of collision.

The car would be destroyed.

The building was severely compromised and ultimately failed due to the damage and fire. This was caused by a jet plane that itself was violently disassembled in the impact, tragically taking the lives of innocent people, both in the building and in the aircraft.
 
yankee451 said:
You going to show me ink spots next?

It's a hole. The power of suggestion tells you it looks like a plane. The research I've done tells me it looks like a bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles stuck from many angles, some bending, gouging and twisting columns, and some big tomahawks detonated right on the face, pushing the damage inwards.
Click to expand...

Just listening to and believing a bunch of conspiracy theorist website and youtube propaganda is not "research". The 9/11 cults have used "the power of suggestion" to tell you that the plane shaped hole looks like this ridiculous and over complicated multiple missile nonsense. And you have fallen for it completely.
 
Last edited:
Gamolon said:
Yeah.

When you think that a water balloon = a 767 jet wing, yeah you're over simplifying.

;)

Go read the paper that's been linked for you and come back with your refutation. If you can that is.
Click to expand...

Okay,

So your example of course is what the crash test will mimic with a real wing and some real columns, to try to recreate this gash that they say was caused by a basically hollow aluminum wing filled with fuel:

wing-gash_1.png


First a reminder the wing is basically hollow, even in their model:

NIST-Hollow-wing.jpg


They're made of folded sheet metal, precision machined to accept more sheet aluminum for the skin. That's basically it. The added fuel may give the wing mass, but this is what's holding it together. Not a full metal jacket - sheet aluminum, none of which was even close to the thickness of the steel in the twins.

Now, they did model the shape of the columns properly at least at one point:

NIST-bolts.jpg


And I do see where they considered the angle of the wing's impact relative the tower face, but I don't see where their exterior walls included columns with two sharp edges each. Is there more detail you can point to where they calculated that interaction, or did they do what everyone else has done when it comes to modeling the impact by modeling the columns as square boxes without sharp leading edges? Did they do as MIT has done and calculate the wings by rolling up all the aluminum in the wing and reforming it as an aluminum machete?

I'd like to see those figures please.

Anyway, so they move on to fill up their model wing with fuel, and somehow this magic fuel adds density to the aluminum sheeting that embraces it like an armor coating. :) It's not of course, but in NIST land, wings filled with fuel are better than dense metal penetrating warheads. Where a bullet usually needs an armor coating to be able to maintain it's integrity long enough to penetrate steel, and where a water jet needs a tiny jeweled apperature to maintain a coherent column of water long enough for the mass and velocity of the water to overcome the steel, WHAT pray tell, WHAT is maintaining the integrity of the wing long enough for it to transfer it's energy to the columns, as it struck them sequentially, one sharp steel knife edge at a time?


Remember what's under the aluminum sheeting of the wing.

If a bird can do this...

0919birdstrikedamageonaircraft.jpg


Why would a wing constructed out of aluminum sheeting...

NIST-Hollow-wing.jpg


...be able to stay together long enough to transfer the energy of the fuel through this:


Ext.-Column-photos-smaller.jpg


It's spread out over a wide are and nothing was holding it together long enough for it's mass and momentum to break through. It wasn't striking at a tiny point, it was being struck by dozens of sharp edges. According to the principals of terminal ballistics regarding penetration, about which this layman has read a bit, by all accounts the wing would have shattered against the steel, and the 9/11 Crash Test will prove it.

The model should prove it first though...should be out in time for 9/11.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
Just listening to and believing a bunch of conspiracy theorist website and youtube propaganda is not "research". The 9/11 cults have used "the power of suggestion" to tell you that the plane shaped hole looks like this ridiculous and over complicated multiple missile nonsense. And you have fallen for it completely.
Click to expand...

Assuming makes an *** out of yourself.
 
AdMan said:
Are you serious? "A bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles" and none of the many thousands of observers, not to mention the cameras, saw them?

Laughable nonsense that can be easily dismissed.
Click to expand...

Your assumptions are noted, but you're still not addressing the elephant in the room.

Try to let the evidence lead you, not your preconceptions (based on rumor, just like the Molten Steel and Concrete Lava). Fool me once, shame on me...fool me ...you can't get fooled again...

:D
 
Yeah, I see you're a disciple of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy crowd. Carry on, I enjoy the laughing.
 
yankee451 said:
Okay,

So your example of course is what the crash test will mimic with a real wing and some real columns, to try to recreate this gash that they say was caused by a basically hollow aluminum wing filled with fuel:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/wing-gash_1.png[/qimg]

First a reminder the wing is basically hollow, even in their model:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NIST-Hollow-wing.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Google U failure. Ignoring the structural framing of the wing. No different than claiming the towers were only glass and aluminum cladding. No surprise though, once again you reject reality and cling to woo.

They're made of folded sheet metal, precision machined to accept more sheet aluminum for the skin. That's basically it. The added fuel may give the wing mass, but this is what's holding it together. Not a full metal jacket - sheet aluminum, none of which was even close to the thickness of the steel in the twins.
Click to expand...

Google U failure

Now, they did model the shape of the columns properly at least at one point:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NIST-bolts.jpg[/qimg]

And I do see where they considered the angle of the wing's impact relative the tower face, but I don't see where their exterior walls included columns with two sharp edges each. Is there more detail you can point to where they calculated that interaction, or did they do what everyone else has done when it comes to modeling the impact by modeling the columns as square boxes without sharp leading edges? Did they do as MIT has done and calculate the wings by rolling up all the aluminum in the wing and reforming it as an aluminum machete?

I'd like to see those figures please.
Click to expand...

You would not understand them if you did see them. Your Google U education has failed you once again.


Anyway, so they move on to fill up their model wing with fuel, and somehow this magic fuel adds density to the aluminum sheeting that embraces it like an armor coating. :) It's not of course, but in NIST land, wings filled with fuel are better than dense metal penetrating warheads. Where a bullet usually needs an armor coating to be able to maintain it's integrity long enough to penetrate steel, and where a water jet needs a tiny jeweled apperature to maintain a coherent column of water long enough for the mass and velocity of the water to overcome the steel, WHAT pray tell, WHAT is maintaining the integrity of the wing long enough for it to transfer it's energy to the columns, as it struck them sequentially, one sharp steel knife edge at a time?
Click to expand...

More woo flinging from the Google U graduate. Rejecting knowledge and embracing fantasy.


Remember what's under the aluminum sheeting of the wing.

If a bird can do this...

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/0919birdstrikedamageonaircraft.jpg[/qimg]

Why would a wing constructed out of aluminum sheeting...

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NIST-Hollow-wing.jpg[/qimg]

...be able to stay together long enough to transfer the energy of the fuel through this:


[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Ext.-Column-photos-smaller.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Maybe if you would stop flinging woo and learn something, you would understand.....until then......well you will just keep flinging the woo.

It's spread out over a wide are and nothing was holding it together long enough for it's mass and momentum to break through. It wasn't striking at a tiny point, it was being struck by dozens of sharp edges. According to the principals of terminal ballistics regarding penetration, about which this layman has read a bit, by all accounts the wing would have shattered against the steel, and the 9/11 Crash Test will prove it.

The model should prove it first though...should be out in time for 9/11.
Click to expand...

Extra credit course at Google U? :jaw-dropp
 
yankee451 said:
Where's the evidence of a plane. The cessna was hanging out the window, but the 767 disappeared, all the way to the wingtips. Just ask the geniuses at Purdue.

A hole is evidence of a hole, not a jet.
Click to expand...

The plane went into the plane shaped hole. It did not disappear it disintegrated.
 
AdMan said:
Yes, and definitely not of "missiles".
Click to expand...

He keeps showing these pictures of plane outlines and calling them missile impacts. I really can't see how anyone could connect Pyrex balls hitting a surface at 3800 mph with these pics and I was educated in the school of hard knocks.
 
yankee451 said:
You going to show me ink spots next?

It's a hole. The power of suggestion tells you it looks like a plane. The research I've done tells me it looks like a bunch of penetrating and high explosive missiles stuck from many angles, some bending, gouging and twisting columns, and some big tomahawks detonated right on the face, pushing the damage inwards.

It's a hole. The power of observation tells me there are no floors, else how could those big wall panels be bent in. History and general "google u" tells me buildings are usually gutted and stripped of anything of value or that could become a projectile before demolition, so common sense would put two and two together when one notices the elephant in the room. With missing floors, how could these buildings be fully occupied?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Center-hole-missing-floors-.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Spandrels-bent-back-small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Nice to know that the evil masterminds are so safety conscious.

Missing floors?
If you removed the floors the buildings would have already collapsed.
 
yankee451:

I read your "test page" and I'm afraid you seem to not even begin to understand the complexity of what you claim to want to do. This plea to "Engineers Wanted" doesn't even begin to describe what would be need to get a cost estimate.

The next step for the 9/11 Crash Test project is to get an accurate price estimate from a test center. This will involve drawing up figures for the test, namely the dimensions and weight of the wing section and the box-columns. I am asking for any sympathetic engineers out there who are interested in helping to please use the contact form to drop me a line.
Click to expand...

Are you planning on letting the test centers design and build the sled and the target block (If they even do that sort of thing)? You better start talking to insurance companies and a lawyer also, there are all kinds of risks involved that you would be held liable if something goes wrong. The fabrication, transportation and rigging alone is going to be expensive. Have you thought about any of this (and this is only the tip of the iceberg).

You better start saving your pennies. This is going to cost you well in to million + dollar range.
 
yankee451 said:
If a bird can do this...

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/0919birdstrikedamageonaircraft.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The whole 'look what damage a bird did to this plane how could a plane possibly have destroyed a building?" line always amuses me.

Twoofers always seem to miss the fact that, despite the bird being soft and squishy, its effective momentum when hit by the plane was sufficient to do that plane considerable damage. They never manage to join the dots there.

When Y451 annotates a photograph to say:

"Notice the spandrels are pushed in, almost as if..."

the words he actually needed to add after it are

"...they were hit by 175 tonnes of aircraft at several hundred mph".
 
threadworm said:
The whole 'look what damage a bird did to this plane how could a plane possibly have destroyed a building?" line always amuses me.

Twoofers always seem to miss the fact that, despite the bird being soft and squishy, its effective momentum when hit by the plane was sufficient to do that plane considerable damage. They never manage to join the dots there.

When Y451 annotates a photograph to say:

"Notice the spandrels are pushed in, almost as if..."

the words he actually needed to add after it are

"...they were hit by 175 tonnes of aircraft at several hundred mph".
Click to expand...

Too bad the Google U education did not teach him that the spandrels were designed for loads parallel to them and that they were very weak in terms of loading perpendicular. (same thing for the building columns) :rolleyes:
 
yankee451 said:
Remember what's under the aluminum sheeting of the wing.

If a bird can do this...
Click to expand...

You're all over the place aren't you? You're making contradicting statements as it suits your argument.

Example.

You say that the entire building should come into play and the perimeter columns should have resisted the 767. Even in your interview with Fetzer, you both agree that the entire tower should have played a part. Then you show a picture of a bird penetrating the wing of a jet and except that without question.

How is it that the jet, with all it's weight and size, did not resist the bird penetrating?

Also, take a close look at that photo. What appears to be on the inside to the left? Where did that bird impact the wing? Localized failure? What would have happened if that bird hit where that internal support structure was?
 
Gamolon said:
You're all over the place aren't you? You're making contradicting statements as it suits your argument.

Example.

You say that the entire building should come into play and the perimeter columns should have resisted the 767. Even in your interview with Fetzer, you both agree that the entire tower should have played a part. Then you show a picture of a bird penetrating the wing of a jet and except that without question.

How is it that the jet, with all it's weight and size, did not resist the bird penetrating?

Also, take a close look at that photo. What appears to be on the inside to the left? Where did that bird impact the wing? Localized failure? What would have happened if that bird hit where that internal support structure was?
Click to expand...

Because the mass of the bird was concentrated on a small point of impact like the mass of a bullet, or the mass of a column of water in a water jet. The 767 had a 160 foot wing span, meaning it's mass and momentum was spread over a wide area.

I repeat, what kept the wing's integrity intact long enough for the jet "with all it's weight and size" to transfer it's energy to the more massive, denser, harder, thicker steel?

If you understood basic physics you could go far.
 
yankee451 said:
Because the mass of the bird was concentrated on a small point of impact like the mass of a bullet, or the mass of a column of water in a water jet. The 767 had a 160 foot wing span, meaning it's mass and momentum was spread over a wide area.

I repeat, what kept the wing's integrity intact long enough for the jet "with all it's weight and size" to transfer it's energy to the more massive, denser, harder, thicker steel?

If you understood basic physics you could go far.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. Are you claiming that each column was as wide as the wing? :confused:
 
threadworm said:
The whole 'look what damage a bird did to this plane how could a plane possibly have destroyed a building?" line always amuses me.

Twoofers always seem to miss the fact that, despite the bird being soft and squishy, its effective momentum when hit by the plane was sufficient to do that plane considerable damage. They never manage to join the dots there.

When Y451 annotates a photograph to say:

"Notice the spandrels are pushed in, almost as if..."

the words he actually needed to add after it are

"...they were hit by 175 tonnes of aircraft at several hundred mph".
Click to expand...

Still avoiding the missing floors, or did the 17 foot fuselage wipe out 3 acres of the stuff as hollow fuselage punched a 30 foot hole in the steel columns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom