Do you have anything to present besides your patently asinine troll statements that we are all supposedly on the government's payroll?
I count 4 pages of flustered bloviating. RWF clearly can't answer the question. Koko's the one that called the folks at MIT names. Perhaps he has the answer? I doubt it though. I included an error that someone qualified to call an MIT engineering student an idiot would have jumped all over. Koko, completely missed it. I'm sure that Koko has no idea how a material's elasticity affects impact forces. I'm sure he has never learned how to calculate tensile strength, ultimate strength, or compressive strength or what those things even mean. I'm quite sure he has no idea how buckling mechanics are affected by "material specs" His attempt to call me, or anyone else an idiot falls a bit short in light of the obvious evidence that he has no clue what the heck is he talking about.
here is an example of why these back yard da-flunkers need to leave physics and engineering to the physicists and engineers. Yes in "theory" butter could potentially go fast enough to cut through steel, however in practice the flunkers will never show how it is possible in real life. Butter in real life cannot be made to cut through steel. Now the flunkers will bring up water jet again because they do not understand those principles either LMAO
Tell me the difference between "theory" and "real life" in this specific instance. Why do you think water can be accelerated to beyond the speed of sound, but butter can't?
Pumpkin versus steel car door. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGJYQdwTUh4"]pumpkin blows your doors off - YouTube[/ame] Any questions?
air can cut steel given enough time and pressure, I was respnding to your initial post not the bs you are morping it into.
fox news live on location! The first view of 175 on sep 11. aham a telling ye that is one hayl of a plane nothing escapes the "shadow" plane!
I didn't "morph" anything. You specifically said that in "real life" butter cannot cut steel. You also said this was impossible and that I didn't know anything about "material specs" Is this your way of saying, "oops I was wrong?"
I already said in reference to a different conversation. you sure that your interpretation is correct? Better check again.
and I am sure you are wrong, you have not been correct about anything yet why should anyone believe you are correct now that any any one who would thing that is anything but cgi is about 55 cards short of a full deck.
No doubt. But your conviction is born of ignorance and that does not make you right. You've fallen quite sort on your knowledge of basic physical principals. You're way off target on the complex stuff. You've not proven me wrong yet. You're in no position to prove me wrong, because you've shown that you don't understand the concepts yourself.
well at least you got one thing right. How ya doing on that CGI plane? Still ignoring it? its even nice and slo mo so you can see how they screwed up the timing on those charges LOL
interesting. you seem to have everything backwards. must be a rough life. see you need cgi because there were charges. dont you think it looks more impressive with the plane graphics than just fire and boom boom?
There's that super duper aluminum tube again, barreling through steel and performing magic! Tough stuff, that aluminum.
yep watch that explode very carefully, there is a huge story being told if you recognize what is "really" happening there. That is the elusive "shadow" plane with forward swept flapping shadow wings and no vertical stabilizer. Dang sounds a like like a sparrow doesnt it?
