Still Hard to Believe How Lame the Purdue Crash Simulation Is
Why exactly are we supposed to believe this lame cartoon is an accurate recreation of what happened on 9/11?????
I mean, disregarding for the moment other glaring problems in the simulation, WHY THE FUCK ARE THIN TORN SHEETS OF ALUMINUM CUTTING THROUGH THICK STEEL CORE COLUMNS?????
Jesus-- it's insulting!
The only possible reason I can think that they think we should take this seriously is because it reflects what we were shown on TV that day-- CGI images.
I mean, disregarding for the moment other glaring problems in the simulation, WHY THE FUCK ARE THIN TORN SHEETS OF ALUMINUM CUTTING THROUGH THICK STEEL CORE COLUMNS?????
Jesus-- it's insulting!
The only possible reason I can think that they think we should take this seriously is because it reflects what we were shown on TV that day-- CGI images.
posted by spooked at 10:52 PM
26 Comments:
it's only fitting that they would make a cartoon to represent other cartoons!
Yeah! What does Purdue know about engineering, anyhow!
Were the impacted floors empty on 9/11?
Regarding "taking this seriously" -
the cartoon wasn't created with THAT in mind. It was created, in my opinion, so that SHILLS would have something other than the 9/11 Commission "Report" etc. to point to as "proof" for their lies that "planes" crashed into WTC buildings 1 and 2.
What does Purdue know about engineering, anyhow!
Makes you wonder, that is for sure.
The question is-- who really thinks irregularly torn sheets of aluminum debris will slice through thick steel columns?
What the fuck kind of engineering knowledge is that?
it's the kind of engineering knowledge that says that the thin walled aluminum wings of a real 767 could not shear massive steel box columns - especially not at the snail's pace of 500mph.
and don't forget about a real 767's lightweight plastic nosecone!
it has no chance of penetrating thru the massive steel box columns either.
maybe someone from purdue will give us a lesson in physics.
but i doubt it since they know better.
"The only possible reason I can think that they think we should take this seriously is because it reflects what we were shown on TV that day"
Yes. They ofcource could not change the story.
But imo it is so stupit.. that it is really unbelivenble.
It must be a scientists somewhere or computer simulation experts who can say something about this ... or maybe do some research into this.
I mean ... this can not stand !
research HAS been done into this.
newton's 3rd law:
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
this means that if the lightweight thin walled aluminum fuselage of a real 767, with a lightweight smooth rounded plastic nosecone, were to really strike the massive steel and concrete of a wtc with a force equivalent to X, then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic of a real 767 with the SAME force equivalent to X.
maybe some smart guy or other can calculate the exact value of this force equivalent to X.
You're right spooky, what they needed to do an accurate rendition of the crash was some chicken wire and cinder blocks...
regardless of whether or not @10:07 will continue to fool itself in believing that it is fooling anyone else, newton's 3rd law still applies to all matter.
even at the snail's pace of 500mph.
"The question is-- who really thinks irregularly torn sheets of aluminum debris will slice through thick steel columns?"
You do know that wings have titanium and steel-composite support and structural spars throughout, don't you?
So your above comment is incorrect.
Would you like to rephrase it?
"and don't forget about a real 767's lightweight plastic nosecone!
it has no chance of penetrating thru the massive steel box columns either."
You do know that behind that lightweight plastic nosecone is a titanium and steel-composite bulkhead that supports the forward fuselage of the aircraft including the cockpit region, don't you?
So your above comment is incorrect.
Would you like to rephrase it?
the wings are aluminum skinned.
ride in a 767, sit by the window over the wing and watch it flex and wobble for the entire flight.
if the structural spars of the wing are made of titanium then those components would rebound off the massive steel box columns of the wtc. or maybe they would shatter.
the lightweight plastic nosecone is made of a lightweight plastic composite. birds regularly knock holes in them.
767s are made as lightweight as the designers can get away with so that they can even leave the ground.
the laws of physics applied on 9/11 just as they have on every other day and 500mph is not some magic velocity that would allow a lightweight hollow object to defeat a massive steel/concrete object.
the official govt/media 9/11 fairytale is unproven and impossible and the evidence does not add up to the claim.
the purdue animation is laughable at best.
An accurate simulation? Not.
Look at how the cartoon perimeter columns give way like butter to the hot knife of the cartoon 767.
Anonymous 10:34 is right, Purdue knows better than that.
"The question is-- who really thinks irregularly torn sheets of aluminum debris will slice through thick steel columns?"
You do know that wings have titanium and steel-composite support and structural spars throughout, don't you?
So your above comment is incorrect.
Would you like to rephrase it?
Since when is a question a statement of fact?
Not to mention that my question is quite separate from whether there are more hardened parts of a plane.
But I suppose the question that you will ignore or misinterpret is whether the torn irregular sheet of debris really represents " titanium and steel-composite support and structural spars".
--spooked
"the torn irregular sheet of debris" seen in the video, that is.
--spooked
Looks like you deleted my last comment. I'll try and reproduce it and see if it lasts this time.
Your minions keep rehashing the "lightweight plastic nosecone" manta as if that were all the aircraft were made of. Fifteen feet behind that "plastic nosecone" are titanium and steel bulkheads supporting the cockpit. I pointed out that the aircraft of today have many, many tons of dense, heavy metals in them. Wing spars, engines, engine mounts, firewalls, bulkheads, mounting brackets, etc are all made of heavy dense material such as titanium and steel. It *has* to or the plane would fall apart when it tried to take off or hit any sort of turbulence.
The Boeing 787, the latest state-of-the-art aircraft these days has 15% of its unloaded weight (approx 240,000 lbs) made up of titanium and 10% made up of steel. That combines to nearly 30 tons of dense, extremely strong and in some cases heavy material in an
airliner's construction. Accelerate that mass of heavy, dense material to 750 feet per second and whatever relatively thin by comparison steel spandrel latticework that are connected by rivets or bolts will not and can not withstand the impact.
You changed your comment from "aluminum" to "debris", but the point still stands because your minions speak only of an "aluminum aircraft", and an airliner these days is much more than that. Indeed, Titanium Metals Corporation's Annual Report of 2004 estimates titanium content of modern airliners to be 58, 43, and 18 tonnes for the Boeing 777, 747 and 737 respectively. While for the Airbus, 24, 17 and 12 tonnes of titanium are used for the A340, A330 and A320 respectively. Generally, newer models use more and widebodies use the most. For the newest models, the 787 might use 91 tonnes and the A380 77 tonnes. The engines account for 10-11 tonnes of those totals.
These are heavy, dense machines that pack quite a wallop when moving as fast as they were and all they had in front of them is thin steel spandrels and glass.
You need to get your minions up to speed on this issue, Spooky. They are woefully uneducated on the aeronautical engineering aspects of aircraft construction.
I have a screen shot of this this time, so if you delete it at least I have proof you are censoring these comments and keeping your toe-sucking crew from seeing the truth about these aircraft.
No one deleted anything. Who is being paranoid now?
As to your comments, you are still wrong.
1) " all they had in front of them is thin steel spandrels and glass"-- completely false and idiotic. It seems as if YOU need to get up to date on how they build large skyscrapers. That one statement completely eviscerates any intelligent point you may have had.
2) further, no one was denying there are heavy parts of an aircraft such as a 767. Probably the heaviest part is the landing gear strut. I don't know what alloy it is, but I am sure it is strong, and each main strut is 6 inches wide by 8 feet long at most. That piece is NOT what is visualized slicing through a 1 foot deep by 3 feet wide core column! But even so, I doubt a landing gear strut, would CLEANLY slice through a core column. Simply think about how much weight a core column supports, ok?
3) you seem to only worry about what the aircraft could do to the building. I think you should worry more about what the building would do to the aircraft. The simply fact is even officially, the plane was chewed up to pieces in the building. Thus, the building was STRONGER.
--spooked
spooked doesn't censor any comments.
the nosecone is a plastic composite - that is why birds regularly damage them.
it doesn't matter if there is a titanium bulkhead 15' behind that because the plastic nosecone encounters the steel/concrete first.
in what manner, do you imagine, that the plastic nosecone of a real 767 would defeat the steel/concrete wtc?
would it:
A) cut like a blade.
B) bludgeon like a hammer.
a titanium bullkhead would not penetrate the perimeter columns and horizontal concrete slabs of a wtc either.
do you imagine that a 767 is a giant armor piercing projectile?
or did you simply think that the word "titanium" was enough to fool anybody.
the truth about "these aircraft" is that they are fragile hollow tubes built of lightweight materials.
since your pea brain attempt at fooling others reveals that you know a little bit about a 787, then you are probably aware that when a 767 is way up in the sky, say, 35k', they only pressurize the cabins to an equivalent of 8k' because a sea level equivalent pressure would put too much stress on it's delicate seams.
hit the road fool you are fooling no-one but yourself.
""thin steel spandrels and glass"".
ya right.
building the wtc
From the moron/shill at 12:53 above, we have this quote:
"Fifteen feet behind that "plastic nosecone" are titanium and steel bulkheads supporting the cockpit."
So the regime's moron/shill 12:53 admits the nosecone was mostly plastic.
So let's examine what would happen. The very moment this admittedly plastic material impacted the steel outer structure of the tower, it would shatter from the inverse force the tower puts on this plastic. It certainly would not survive 100% intact to come out the other side--that's clearly pure CGI. It would likely get obliterated and at best, perhaps some fragments/remnants might enter the tower.
FURTHERMORE, moron/shill 12:53, the fact (if true) that stronger metallic material is behind the plastic cone
[your quote, "Fifteen feet behind that "plastic nosecone" are titanium and steel bulkheads supporting the cockpit]
only means that as the plastic nose cone is shattering outside the tower, the heavy metals then slamming into the plastic cone remnants--at the tower's outer structure--will cause the cone to be more intensely obliterated. That is, as the cone will not enter the steel edifice, in the milliseconds that it is there, the titanium etc. will first further slam into and obliterate the cone, before any of this mesh of plastic and titanium might have a chance at entering the tower.
I can see why the regime usually puts out inane, personal, sexual "comments"; based no doubt, on the shills personal experience.
When the shill tried to be logical or scientific, it yielded only imbecility. Go back to your simpler retarded statements., When you try to sound intelligent, you only end up showing yourself to be more retarded. There are intelligent people here, your NSA scum, are only wasting time here. But they just can't stand it, if a word of truth is spoken anywhere on this planet. Let's now await a shorter, more (s)explicit comment. All that they've got--namely nothing.
Anonymous Physicist
"The simply fact is even officially, the plane was chewed up to pieces in the building. Thus, the building was STRONGER. "
Well, I got you to to acknowledge that there was a plane.
of course there was a plane - on the purdue sim.
there was no real evidence of a real plane really hitting either wtc or we would have seen something quite different from what we were presented with.
every single image of a plane hitting a wtc shown to us by the mcmedia was false.
i don't know how the scientific/engineering community can sleep at night.
present company excluded.
I said "officially" there was a plane.
ha ha!
WHY THE FUCK ARE THIN TORN SHEETS OF ALUMINUM CUTTING THROUGH THICK STEEL CORE COLUMNS?????
The shreds of aluminum weighed as much as several tons and were tearing through the building at 500 miles per hour.
Does that answer your f-ing stupid question?
""The shreds of aluminum weighed as much as several tons and were tearing through the building at 500 miles per hour.""
wow swort_of_obvious you just keep getting better and better!
is that the lesson in physics that you promised?
ha ha!
Post a Comment
<< Home