Still Waiting for the Proof that Jet Fuel-Filled Aluminum Wings Can Slice Through Thick Steel Columns
The NIST fantasy model:
Remember that officially for the South tower at the 80th floor, we had outer box columns with two sides of 13/16th inch thick steel and two side of 1/4 inch thick steel.
For a Boeing 767 wing, we have aluminum skin over aluminum spars. I couldn't find the exact thickness of the aluminum for the Boeing 767 wing, but aluminum of less than 1/10th of an inch thick seems very safe to assume.
Also note, aluminum is about 1/3rd as dense as iron (2.702 g/cm^3 versus 7.86 g/cm^3). Even if special aluminum and steel alloys were used for the respective structures, it is not going to change the density ratio very much.
So we have a wing, a relatively thin aluminum structure, made of far less dense material than steel, impacting thick steel columns-- and BURSTING THROUGH THEM?
That is what, NIST, shills for the official story, says, using a highly manipulated computer model (see above figure).
But wouldn't this concept be easily testable in real-life?
Think of an aluminum can, empty or filled, striking a steel pipe at high velocity, with walls of the pipe being proportionally thicker than the walls of the can, as the proportions of the box column steel thickness compared to thickness of the wing aluminum.
Note, I am NOT saying this would be a perfect way to test the official theory, I am just saying a meaningful physical experiment wouldn't be at all hard to set up-- especially with someone like NIST with extensive resources.
Remember that officially for the South tower at the 80th floor, we had outer box columns with two sides of 13/16th inch thick steel and two side of 1/4 inch thick steel.
For a Boeing 767 wing, we have aluminum skin over aluminum spars. I couldn't find the exact thickness of the aluminum for the Boeing 767 wing, but aluminum of less than 1/10th of an inch thick seems very safe to assume.
Also note, aluminum is about 1/3rd as dense as iron (2.702 g/cm^3 versus 7.86 g/cm^3). Even if special aluminum and steel alloys were used for the respective structures, it is not going to change the density ratio very much.
So we have a wing, a relatively thin aluminum structure, made of far less dense material than steel, impacting thick steel columns-- and BURSTING THROUGH THEM?
That is what, NIST, shills for the official story, says, using a highly manipulated computer model (see above figure).
But wouldn't this concept be easily testable in real-life?
Think of an aluminum can, empty or filled, striking a steel pipe at high velocity, with walls of the pipe being proportionally thicker than the walls of the can, as the proportions of the box column steel thickness compared to thickness of the wing aluminum.
Note, I am NOT saying this would be a perfect way to test the official theory, I am just saying a meaningful physical experiment wouldn't be at all hard to set up-- especially with someone like NIST with extensive resources.
posted by spooked at 9:29 AM
35 Comments:
wouldn't this concept be easily testable in real-life?
it is easily testable, and i have done so:
stand an empty beer can (representing a 767 fuselage) on a BBQ grill (representing wtc perimeter columns) on 2 red bricks (steel reinforced concrete wtc floors) onto an iron fireplace grate (massive wtc core columns).
smash the beer can with a sledge hammer (representing the force that alleged 500mph momentum would generate).
observe how little (none!) of the beer can actually penetrates thru the BBQ grill.
replace the 2 red bricks (now cracked) with 2 fresh bricks and use a full beer can lying on it's side (representing a 767 wing with full fuel tanks).
again smash and observe!
stand the whole affair on edge and we have a far more accurate model of a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) striking a massive steel and concrete wtc than either the bogus NIST diagrams or equally bogus fag purdue animation.
h is for ha, fags!
the South tower at the 80th floor, had outer box columns with two sides of 13/16th inch thick steel and two side of 1/4 inch thick steel.
it is worth noting that the 13/16th inch thick steel was the sides of each box column and the 1/4 inch thick steel was the inside and outside faces of each box column.
Ty 10 autobuses together, smash them at a WTC tower with 500mph (possible speed?) and see the buses triumph over thick steel.
what the devil is an autobus and can 10 of them tied together fly at 500+mph?
no.
does an autobus have an aluminum frame?
no, it has a steel frame.
does it have a lightweight highspeed turbo fan jet engine?
no, it has a cast iron engine block.
is it light enough to leave the ground and fly at 500+mph?
no, it is comprised of iron and steel and is lucky to break the 55mph speed limit.
do a real experiment and make a real comment or shut the fuck up.
Hey what would happen if a 140 ton blue whale were to impact the WTC at 500 mph?
Would it punch a hole right through the steel?
No? Why not?
Because it is softer than the steel WTC?
Idiots, just keep watching your TV, maybe a 150 ton Paris Hilton could make a Paris Hilton shaped hole in the WTC!
This is the most outrageous thing I have ever read.
You cannot compare a beer can on a grid to the collison event on the wtc.
Materials are different. Proportions are vastly different.
Proof that the sledge hammer hitting a stationery aluminium can is equivalent to the collison of an aircraft on the building.
Your collison event is vastly different. You appear to show that someone glued the plane to the building and then hit it with something from nehind. Thats what your experiment is similar to.
If you want to model the collison. Make everything to exact scale. Keep all materials exactly the same. Then get something to propel your model aircraft into your mini building.
Absolutely the worst form of pseudo science I have ever seen.
keep all the materials the same?
i have; steel/concrete and aluminum.
keeping it to scale is hard but my experiment is as close as it gets with everyday items.
i think that the sledgehammer squash from behind onto the can is even more generous to the official fairytale because it tries to ram the can thru the grill without allowing any of it to deflect/bounce off as would occur in real life.
again, since both NIST and purdue have their cartoon aluminum 767s (with plastic nosecones and including the wingtips) behaving like an armor piercing round, i assert that my experiment is a far more accurate model of a real aluminum 767 (with a plastic nosecone) striking a massive steel and concrete wtc than either the bogus NIST diagrams or equally bogus fag purdue animation.
anyone can draw/program a cartoon - should you not hold NIST/pudue to the same standards that you demand from me?
the reality is that if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic 767 with the same force equivalent to X.
""Proportions are vastly different.""
actually the proportions of the BBQ grill's spacing to the diameter of the beer can are very close to the proportions of the massive steel perimeter columns to the diameter of a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone.
and while the dimension of a red brick is proportionally much greater than the thickness of a steel reinforced concrete wtc floor, i spaced them farther apart, not only to compensate, but to give the beer can an even greater chance of penetrating thru the BBQ grill, which is what this is all about.
so. not only would a real 767's aluminum fuselage (with a plastic nosecone no less) not penetrate thru the closely-spaced massive steel box columns of a wtc, neither by actually shearing the steel nor by breaking the welds (a weld is actually stronger than a non weld, go ask a real welder), but the fuselage and assorted items contained within it would squash into a big wad of debris that would probably act as a cushion between the 767's brittle jet engines, maybe even preventing them from shattering against the closely-spaced massive steel box columns which were backed up by the steel reinforced concrete horizontal floors which were tied into and backed up by the even more massive steel core box columns.
again, should you not hold NIST/purdue to the same standards that you try to hold me to?
Proof?
Sept 11, 2001
oh s11'01 was proof alright - proof that a criminal regime govt cares so little about even it's own people that they would sacrififice 3000 of them simply to avoid getting the proper permits and dismantling a landmark property safely and properly.
s11 was proof that the media can pass off ridiculous cartoons as real events and that you stupid americans will bend over backwards in order to look the other way simply because the reality is too scary for your pea-brains to accept, even though that reality is more than obvious.
case in point:
former commentor Pinch; a member of the mighty U.S. Navy, many of which died in the pentagon where the only evidence of a 757 having skimmed the ground at top speed and then punching a 12' diameter hole into the section of pentagon where all his Navy comrades were located was obviously photo-shopped pics.
is Admiral Pinch outraged by the U.S. govts treatment of his comrades and subsequent treatment of an entire region of people who just happen to be situated on the largest deposits of oil on the planet?
no. pinch feels more at ease accepting a ridiculous explanation for the death of his alleged comrades because he is too cowardly to cry "foul".
just like the rest of you fags.
here is a question for you fags:
which is a more pleasing shade of brown, your noses, or the shirts of your nazi models?
h is for ha, fags!
Interview with aerospace engineer on the absurdity of the planes story
Mr. Keith talks about how absurd it is to think the planes would have disappeared inside the buildings rather than grind to pieces against the buildings. He says he was lead engineer for Boeing on its "Shaker System," designed to simulate resonant frequencies of a plane in flight. He says that from that work he knows very well how fragile the planes are, and compares them to a beer can.
The steel in your grid how comparable is it to the steel used in WTC. Provide evidence. Density of your steel? How was your steel grid connected to the bricks. Does this connection compare to the WTC connections.
Your can - what are the dimensions, please relate those dimenesions to the aircraft. Then what are the dimensions on your grill. Relate that to the dimensions on the perimeter colums on WTC.
Show me the thickness of your steel grid members is the same scale as everything else to the real world situation. I.e. If the scale of your can to the aircraft is 1:500. Then prove that the scale of your building model and ALL its entities is exactly the same.
Prove that hiting a stationery aluminium can, is similar to an aircraft flying at 500mph into a stationery building. Because you think it is the same, then show me your calculations to prove that. What are your qualifications that enable you to make that judgement.
The impact force of your can, being hit by a hammer. Comapre that to the impact force of the aircraft. What scale factors are you using?
Are the dimensions of the can, that impacting your model similar to a cone shaped aircraft?
Why have you ignored the effects of the explosion?
Do you have a degree in anything scientific. I doubt it. You would fail first year physics with an experiment like this. You have ignored thousands of parameters.
Do you have a degree in anything scientific....You would fail first year physics with an experiment like this.
would i really fail? what are your qualifications to make such a judgement?
go ask your science teacher.
i am no scientist but merely a simple rodeo clown.
so you are NOT holding NIST/purdue to the same standards that you are pretending to hold me to?
for anyone who cares enough to dwell on on any of this, that is the giveaway right there, is it not?
i need only only say this, and if you have a problem with it then you should take it up with sir isaac newton, who's 3rd law tells us that:
if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic 767 with the same force equivalent to X.
There is no way you can compare a BBQ grill with the exterior columns of the twin towers. If you made a bbq grill the same size as the towers, the whole thing would bend and collapse under its own weight. You, sir, are an idiot.
Actually I am qualified. I have a degree in Civil Engineering.
So I am qualified to make judgements about structural models. Your structural model is poor and by no means a reparesentation of the actual situation.
I have pointed out some of the obvious aspects of your model that are incorrect and grossly over simplified.
One thing you ignore - moving your bricks further apart. How does the bending moment of your imapct force compare to that of the imapct? Moving your bricks further apart alters so many aspects of the situation, you would need a 4 year degree in engineering to understand.
Bricks and concrete are two different materials entirely. What about your connections of your grid to the bricks? Any considerations given there? Do you even understand the concept of connections in structural engineering, and how various connections alter the entire structural system?
You say your grid is similar? Really show it. Show the dimensions and scale factors. Compare that to your beer can, and its comparison and scale factor to a boeing.
Thank you.
Brian-- I agree that the model described above is not an accurate representation of the official story.
But it is still better than what NIST has done, in that it at least tests reality.
But please, someone try a more accurate test! Is the theory that NIST puts out at all viable?
I've tried some tests on my own, where the objects were plastic, not metal, but the scaling was a little closer to the official situation.
In my test, the fluid-filled flask (wing) did not come close to penetrating the proportionally 3x thicker tube (column), and the flask shattered on contact.
There is no way you can compare a BBQ grill with the exterior columns of the twin towers. If you made a bbq grill the same size as the towers, the whole thing would bend and collapse under its own weight.
This is a silly critique, as the expt above was only mimicking a small part of the outer WTC wall, and was not supposed to represent the complete tower wall.
Further, the BBQ grill, if scaled up, would be much stronger than the real wall. You'd be talking about outer columns composed of 20 inches of solid steel, or so. That's why the model described in the posts above isn't an accurate test. Not because the grill bars are too weak, but because the are too thick compared to the aluminum can.
Actually I am qualified. I have a degree in Civil Engineering.
very good for you! then you know damn well that if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel and concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic 767 with the same force equivalent to X.
So I am qualified to make judgements about structural models. Your structural model is poor and by no means a reparesentation of the actual situation.
awesome! i concede that you are more than qualified to make judgements about this matter.
the BBQ grill was one of those round silver colored ones with bars about 1/8" diameter spaced about 1/2" apart.
now that you, brian, have revealed that you know what you are talking about i might suggest that you put your qualifications to better use and pass some judgements about the NIST computer model and the purdue computer model, because you and i both know that they are a crock of shit.
obviously the materials that comprise a 767 cannot defeat the materials that comprise a wtc.
unless you think that 500 mph is some kind of magic velocity that changes those materials?
hardly.
i don't have to prove anything because i am not the one who blew up the towers and used the media to present animations of planes passing right into one of them like casper the ghost in order to fool everybody and then commissioned lapdogs NIST and PURDUE to try and justify those cartoons with other cartoons.
^ha.
1 autobus = 10.000kg
10 autobuses = 100.000kg
Pretending a big plane is the most monstrous thing in the world is absurd. Most of it is air.
Your test is NOT testing reality!!! For reasons I have pointed out to you! Your model is not to scale. Your materials are not the same. Your structural system is different to the real situation. Your collison event is VASTLY different to the real situation.
Simply put its all wrong!
that is fine, brian, i concede that my experiment is not exact.
but i continue to insist that the NIST and PURDUE computer animations are even farther from the truth than my model.
why do you again ignore this?
in case you haven't noticed, it is about the bogusness of their models, not mine.
don't think that anyone who reads this blog will be fooled into judging my model while not holding these other models to the same standards.
your claim of qualifications does indeed come with resposibilities.
you can choose to evade those responsibilities but i assure that no one will be fooled.
h is for ha.
My comments were directed towards your model. I chose to highlight the problems with your specific model, as it was apparent that due to the results of your experiment you were claiming that the aircraft could not have penatrated the building. I found that your model was inaccurate and therfore raised that specific issue with you.
I did not go into the details of NIST and Purdue computer animations because, you were not examining them specifically. You had created a model. I chose to limit my criticisms to your model.
If you had posted the NIST and PURDUE computer models, derivations, formulaes and criticised the models on that basis, I would be in a position to comment in relation to the models.
As I do not know what you find wrong with the models, I cannot comment on the models.
From my review of the model, I have not found anything alarmingly inaccurate or false. If there are aspects you feel that have been incorrectly modelled, please bring it up. Would like to review it.
From my review of the model, (NIST/PURDUE)I have not found anything alarmingly inaccurate or false.
give me a break brian, you are the one who claims to be qualified.
first of all both the nist AND the purdue cartoon "models" show an aluminum 767's plastic nosecone punching right thru the massive steel pieces of a wtc like an armor piercing round.
second of all both of these "models" show an aluminum 767 wing slicing right thru the massive steel like a saw thru wood.
if you find nothing amiss there then perhaps you are not as qualified as you might think.
You ignore the principle of momentum.
It is a function of mass and speed.
A less dense object is more than capable of piercing a higher dense object. Depends on primarily the momentum of the object.
A full understanding of this concept does alot to help understand the principles of the model.
""A less dense object is more than capable of piercing a higher dense object. Depends on primarily the momentum of the object.""
that is nonsense brian and you know it.
an armor piercing round is not made of aluminum - and certainly not a hollow aluminum tube with a plastic tip.
a saw blade is not made of aluminum.
a drill bit is not made of aluminum.
Ok cool - how about I get my bow and wooden arrow, with a wooden point, and get you to stand in front of me. I'll shoot my arrow into you.
No need to worry you are more dense than wood.
i am more dense than wood?
i do concede that you are probably smarter than i, but sir you will never outsmart me.
when you continuously deviate from the issue at hand you show YOUR true hand.
anyway, do continue to deviate - that is really the only tactic that you deviates have left.
Deviate? Perhaps I missed a question. I apologise. Please redirect me, or repost the question.
Less dense objects are capable of penatrating objects of higher densities. Pieces of wood have been known to penetrate through aluminium or zinc roof sheetings during tornadoes. Planes can't penatrate buildings? I guess the crash on Empire State in 1945 was also faked. Read an excerpt from wikipedia on the Empire State bUilding-
At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith who was flying in a thick fog, accidentally crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and another plummeted down an elevator shaft.
A much smaller plane flying a hell of alot slower, yet it penatrated! The engine went flying through the building! Was this also a conspiracy?
NIST and Purdue models make reasonable sense to me. I am aware of the physical forces at play. I am well conversed with structural engineering theory. I know how structural systems behave. Therefore I accept the explanation for collapse.
My university proffeser, an Afrikaans fellow offered his explanation for the collapse on Sep 12th 2001, in a lecture he gave us. His theory on collapse was in genral the same as what has been claimed by engineers world wide.
I have read numerous engineering journals, published in the UK, US and South Africa (to name a few) that offered basically the same theory for collapse. Not ONE of these well known journals (some in existance for 50+ years) have found faults in the NIST or Purdue models. These journals are reviewed by thousands of engineers worldwide. Are they all wrong. Are they all government agents? Are they all not as qualified as they think. Well then I suggest you watch out. Buildings, bridges and other structures are all coming down pretty soon!
Pieces of wood have been known to penetrate through aluminium or zinc roof sheetings during tornadoes.
please. i could stab a piece of wood thru an aluminum or zinc sheeting using only my muscles for force.
being allegedly a structural engineer you are aware of the components that made up the massive wtc, and if you actually cared about the truth then you would also be aware of the components that make up a real 767, which is not capable of traveling at the alleged 500 mph @ 700 ft altitude, which is certainly not a magic velocity that changes the properties of said components anyway.
hit the road brian, no one who would ever read this blog believes that you actually believe the official 9/11 fairytale.
go get someone else with a real argument.
Well wood is less dense than aluminium or zinc. So you agree that less dense materials can indeed penatarte a higher dense material. Glad we agree on that issue.
What do you mean, not capable of flying at 500 mph @ 700 ft? Read through this ection from a forum I found. They discuss this very point. Pilots verify that numerous aircraft have exceeded these limits. It may be against the laws to fly like this, but doesn't mean its impossible.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94051&highlight=jeff+pumpitout
Definitely NOT impossible for an aircraft to fly like that!!
"""Read through this ection from a forum I found. They discuss this very point. Pilots verify that numerous aircraft have exceeded these limits. It may be against the laws to fly like this, but doesn't mean its impossible."""
forum you found?
did you think that we would not laugh in the face of this "forum that you found"? (hi sword!)
not only a designer of boeing airliners says that a 767 cannot go that fast at that altitude, but even the boeing secretaries are aware of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
brian, your side is not achieving it's goal, even if you think that it is.
Beer cans and grill gratings? I was laughing until I realized you might not be joking.
"Massive steel box columns" sure does sound impressive. One thing not pointed out is box columns only have strength in *compression*. Compression strength demo; Take that beer can, empty it, stand it on end and carefully step up on it. If you're careful (the beer hasn't made you wobble too much)it will support over 150lbs. While you're balanced on it have someone firmly rap on the sides and the can will collapse. The same principles apply with that boxed-steel column. Strong in compression, *until* something folds in the sides.
Mass is mass; umpteen tons of fuel, aluminum, baggage, landing gear, and people are going to fold those "massive" columns in half & snap the welds holding them in place. In turn, the airplane is going to shred, the engines will ignite the jet fuel and everything else flammable in the vicinity. Pour a couple thousand gallons of burning fuel on the floor and where will it go? Everywhere. How's about down elevator shafts and stairwells, pipe chases and ductwork? Elevator shafts and pipe chases can create a chimney effect when the fire gets going. Fire and structural steel don't mix. Weaken the steel supports of a building enough and it's gonna come down, no conpiracy required.
I won't even ask how multiple news sources were able to simultaneously fake live video broadcasts in real-time.
Look, all the facts in the world won't change the minds of the people who have made conspiracy theories their religion. The "special insight" they believe they have allows them to imagine they are smarter than both "average" people, and the experts they label as "puppets". I group these 9/11 folks in with the Flat Earth and "faked Moon landing" folks.
There are so many _real_ issues you people could invest your energy in; helping the homeless, volunteering at a hospital, visiting shut-ins, etc. But hey, that wouldn't be as fun as ranting about some "shadow government" conspiracy from the computer in your Mom's basement, right? Whatever...
Forum I found - google boeing 767 speeds 911 and that forum thread comes up. Anyone in the world can find it in that manner. You don't have to be a member of it.
Designer of a boeing said that? Really? Please show me that this person is a design engineer for boeing. Not the youtube video, but a verifiable source. I don't want to see that they indeed work for boeing, but that this person is a AIRCRAFT DESIGN ENGINEER for boeing. Why is it that in a corporation as large as boeing, with hundreds of Aeronuatical engineers, only ONE thinks that.
The information I have about that statement, is that it was made on a short cut-off phone call at 3am. Jeff Hill made the call. Boeing's official version supports that of NIST. Are boeing in on it as well?
Are all the ATC who watched the aircrafts on the radar scope lying as well. How was radar data faked?
Phone calls from passangers on the flight. How was that faked?
Do you realise how many THOUSANDS of people would have to be in on this conspiracy for it to be still a conspiracy. How is it that not one single person has come out, explaining that radar data was faked etc. HUH?
Why is it that engineers with years of experience find NO problem with NIST and Purdue models, but some people without engineering experience do?
How is it that numerous tv broadcasters where able to fake live images simultaneously?
If this was a fake, why are there almost no videos of the first strike? Surely the government would have put more footage out there to make it more believable?
Why is it that the point of impact on the first tower, looks like a plane hit it? The profile is similar. YOU cannot refute that.
Less dense objects are capable of penatrating objects of higher densities. Pieces of wood have been known to penetrate through aluminium or zinc roof sheetings during tornadoes. Planes can't penatrate buildings? I guess the crash on Empire State in 1945 was also faked. Read an excerpt from wikipedia on the Empire State bUilding-
At 9:40 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith who was flying in a thick fog, accidentally crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and another plummeted down an elevator shaft.
A much smaller plane flying a hell of alot slower, yet it penatrated! The engine went flying through the building! Was this also a conspiracy?
Well your examples of wood going through sheet roofing are a very poor comparison to a thin sheeted aluminum wing cutting through thick steel columns. That doesn't say much about your supposed engineering expertise.
About the B25 crash-- have you seen the pictures of this? I posted them on this site a few months back. In fact, the plane DIDN'T really penetrate very well. Most of the plane squashed up against the building, with the tail sticking out. And the engines could easily have gone in and out through windows, and I bet they did.
Beer cans and grill gratings? I was laughing until I realized you might not be joking.
"Massive steel box columns" sure does sound impressive. One thing not pointed out is box columns only have strength in *compression*. Compression strength demo; Take that beer can, empty it, stand it on end and carefully step up on it. If you're careful (the beer hasn't made you wobble too much)it will support over 150lbs. While you're balanced on it have someone firmly rap on the sides and the can will collapse. The same principles apply with that boxed-steel column. Strong in compression, *until* something folds in the sides.
Well, here's the deal:
1) the experiment the top poster referred to WAS done with the beer can on end.
2) we're not talking about steel columns folding inwards from being hit on the side. If you see the diagram at the top of the post, the wings supposedly CUT through the steel columns, which is quite a different proposition
3) you're wrong about the other stuff, too, Mr.Cad_Guy.
some great writing here. Strange that people talk about density but neglect to mention hardness, the mohs scale. I can jame my wood pencil through a puddle of mercury but a sheet of aluminum will slow me down. The energy contained in a full tank (these planes had already burned half getting up to fl350) is only enough to raise just the steel in a wtc tower by <100 degrees celsius. So if some steel is much hotter, the rest is naturally cooler. 90 plus percent of the steel in those buildings was at 100% strength.
Post a Comment
<< Home