• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

TruthersLie said:
How did the car manage to cause the plate steel to fold in half in the mythbuster video?
Click to expand...

Simple. The car and the steel plate collided. The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.


BigAl said:
Pressure per square foot times the number of square feet exceeds the carrying capacity in a direction the the column was not designed for.
Click to expand...

But where did the fuel come from to put pressure on the columns that were hit by the section of wing outboard of rib 18?
 
bardamu said:
Simple. The car and the steel plate collided. The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.
Click to expand...

They were hit by wing. Mackey's point about the fuel was - I imagine - for the purposes of illustration. Just as people here sometimes point out for the purpose of illustration that high-pressure water jets can cut steel, it doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that high-pressure water jets were used to break the WTC outer columns.

Get it?

bardamu - do you really believe it takes a harder substance to penetrate or break some other substance?
 
bardamu said:
The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.
Click to expand...



You keep saying that, but from what I've seen, you're basing it on a mis-interpretation of NIST. Earlier, you said:


bardamu said:
The slug of fuel model is supposed to prove that the plane could have broken through the wall, which in turn is supposed to prove that the nose out may not have been a cgi. NIST say it's reasonable to suppose that all the fuel was in the inboard tank, whereas Mackey assumes there was fuel in both tanks. We have a discrepancy and it has nothing to do with eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...


But what you quoted from NIST actually said:


NCSTAR 1-2B (page 88)
Since the baffle ribs restrict fuel from flowing outboard, it is reasonable that all fuel that could flow inboard was actually inboard at the time of impact.
Click to expand...


"all fuel that could flow inboard" =/= "all the fuel".

Until you can source someone clearly stating that "all the fuel" (with no qualifiers) was inboard, your objection has no merit.
 
GlennB said:
They were hit by wing. Mackey's point about the fuel was - I imagine - for the purposes of illustration. Just as people here sometimes point out for the purpose of illustration that high-pressure water jets can cut steel, it doesn't mean that anyone is suggesting that high-pressure water jets were used to break the WTC outer columns.

Get it?
Click to expand...

On Hardfire the model wasn't just presented as an illustration.

Ron Wieck: "In other words, the effect that we see, that the plane simply sliced through the building, is really the only thing we could expect to see? It can't be otherwise?"

Ryan Mackey: "Right. That is what the model predicts."


For a high-pressure water jet to cut a piece of steel, you have to point the water jet at the piece of steel before any cutting can start.


Horatius said:
You keep saying that, but from what I've seen, you're basing it on a mis-interpretation of NIST. Earlier, you said:

But what you quoted from NIST actually said:


"all fuel that could flow inboard" =/= "all the fuel".

Until you can source someone clearly stating that "all the fuel" (with no qualifiers) was inboard, your objection has no merit.
Click to expand...

On page 88, NIST show a diagram comparing the fuel load of the two planes. Flight 175 has all its fuel in the inboard tank, while flight 11 also has a small amount in the outboard tank. Even the fuel in flight 11 poses huge problems for the slug of fuel model. I can't find figures for the height of the fuel tanks in NCSTAR 1-2B, but Mackey uses 16". If that's the height of a full tank at the half way mark, then he's grossly overestimating the momentum of any fuel outboard of rib 18.
 
bardamu said:
On page 88, NIST show a diagram comparing the fuel load of the two planes. Flight 175 has all its fuel in the inboard tank, while flight 11 also has a small amount in the outboard tank. Even the fuel in flight 11 poses huge problems for the slug of fuel model. I can't find figures for the height of the fuel tanks in NCSTAR 1-2B, but Mackey uses 16". If that's the height of a full tank at the half way mark, then he's grossly overestimating the momentum of any fuel outboard of rib 18.
Click to expand...

So your saying the hole shouldn't had been as big? Can you show your calculations as to how big it should have been?
 
This is very confusing. Were the still photos faked too? And, as beachnut asked, the witnesses' eyeballs? :confused:
 
bardamu said:
Simple. The car and the steel plate collided. The problem with the slug of fuel model is that some columns broke even though they weren't hit by any fuel at all.

But where did the fuel come from to put pressure on the columns that were hit by the section of wing outboard of rib 18?
Click to expand...
175 hit the WTC, 277,600 pound aircraft. This is so pathetic you offer zero calculations only failed opinion. Why do you offer a tangential apology for murdering terrorists? You hate Americans too?

Oops, you are right the wingtips failed to enter the WTC. Oh, no this leaves you without a McGuffin. See no wing tip breakthrough. All ready to save the world but you have delusions of no planes; how anti-intellectual and stupid does an idea have to be for you to push it?


How wide are those shell sections. Did you know without the shell, the core can't stand?
wtcside.jpg


WTCcladdingflying.jpg

19 terrorist did 911, who are you trying to blame with your insane claims of no planes? Who? How patriotic you must feel making up lies to satisfy your paranoid delusions. Any chance you have some calculations to go with your failed ideas;

wtc2impact-1.jpg

Outer wing section failed to enter WTC. There goes your argument back down the pit of ignorance.

Does pushing the insane idea of no planes make the person pushing the ideas insane? What anti-depressant causes these kinds of delusions?
 
Last edited:
fitzgibbon said:
Since the nominal 'truth' movement has taken to resurrecting zombie arguments the newest of which hails from 2006, bs in stuck in his own temporal Groundhog Day ad nauseum.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Click to expand...
In a way he's right.:eek:


The "9/11 debunker movement" is dying. There's nothing left to debunk, the job is done.
 
If no-planers want an explanation to why a large mass traveling at high speeds is able to penetrate a large building, why don't they begin by picking up an elementary school physics text book? That seems to be the sole basis for their problems; of course if they can't accept the physics explained to them by someone I don't know what gives me any kind of optimism they'll do any better by reading it themselves...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom