Sunday, June 11, 2006

The Scientific Approach

Here's a Truther who decided to test what happens when a 767 flies into a 110-story building. Of course, he didn't have a 767 or a 110-story building, so he improvised:

I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.

I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.


Well, I mean, that proves it. But our intrepid researcher was not satisfied and so he decided to try even stronger wings:

The wings did not break, but I COULD NOT RAM THE PLANE THROUGH THE WALL of columns, even using all my strength. Only after repeated ramming attempts was I able to get the plane inside, and even then it went in sort of sideways, without the wings breaking any extra columns.

Sadly, the experimenter did not include photos of his efforts. But this gentleman has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the holes in the World Trade Center were not made by an airplane.

Hat Tip: Instapinch

Update: Be sure to read of Chad's own attempt to replicate 9-11 in the comments. Great comment!

10 Comments:

At 11 June, 2006 12:53, Blogger shawn said...

Oh man, I'm a convert.

 
At 11 June, 2006 13:01, Blogger Alex said...

What an idiot.

I know this isn't really neccesary, but here goes anyway:

1) He talks about the wingS "bending back". In fact, modern passanger aircraft don't have wingS, they have A wing. The entire thing is constructed as one piece, and it is both the most complex and the most structuraly solid piece of the aircraft. It has to be. The wing needs to be able to support the weight of the entire aircraft without bending more than a degree or two, let alone breaking.

2) I'm prety sure this dumbass isn't capable of propelling a wooden aircraft at 550kph. Or at the scale speed required to simulate the ammount of force that would have been applied when the aircraft met the central columns.

But hey, at least he's trying. It's better than sitting around watching Loose Change.

 
At 11 June, 2006 13:33, Blogger James B. said...

This is hilarious. This has to be my favorite line.

If I were an engineer, I'm sure I could find an equation that could describe this phenomenon.

If you were an engineer you wouldn't be writing this idiocy in the first place.

 
At 11 June, 2006 14:16, Blogger Chad said...

That reminds me of the experiment I did do illustrate how the towers were brought down with demolition charges.

I made scale models of both towers using cardboard for the floors, popsicle sticks for the inner core, and toothpicks for the exterior columns. (I even used a straw to simulate the north tower's antenna.)

The plan was to use those little snappy things that pop when you throw them on the ground as the charges. I wired each floor with about 5 of these things using simple firecracker fuses.

The whole pre-demo process took me a good 4 to 5 months. So you can imagine my anger when, after carefully taking my exact wooden replica of the towers outside to detonate (mom said no explosions in the house, safety first), two fucking hummingbirds, laced with incendiary devices flew into each structure, knocking loose the charges and severing the fuses.

Each tower came down for some reason, but I'll be damned if I know why. I had the presence of mind to take temperature readings during the debacle and noted that the fire wasn't nearly hot enough to burn wood or cardboard. That added to the fact that the smoke was black, indicated that some invisible forcefield had surrounded the mock-up and the tiny flames were using up what little oxygen was left.

I timed each collapse and found that my buildings fell at approximately Mach 2.5. The only possible explanation for this is that I'm a retard and have no fucking clue what I'm doing.

 
At 11 June, 2006 14:30, Blogger Alex said...

"two fucking hummingbirds, laced with incendiary devices flew into each structure, knocking loose the charges and severing the fuses.
....
I timed each collapse and found that my buildings fell at approximately Mach 2.5. The only possible explanation for this is that I'm a retard and have no fucking clue what I'm doing."


jeezus, I just about pissed myself when I read that. good job :)

 
At 11 June, 2006 15:45, Blogger Pat said...

LOL, Chad!

 
At 11 June, 2006 16:23, Blogger shawn said...

Call the undertaker, 'cause that post slayed me.

 
At 11 June, 2006 19:06, Blogger ScottSl said...

Hummingbirds!! LOL!!!!

 
At 11 June, 2006 20:19, Blogger undense said...

Chad, that was poetry.

 
At 11 June, 2006 21:55, Blogger Abby Scott said...

Beautiful, Chad.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home