Notice that I didn't go after the lowest-hanging fruit: "Actually, it's very easy to predict that a drag car without an engine in it would not go at all."
Respectfully,
Myriad
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hardfire: Physics of 9/11
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
Notice that I didn't go after the lowest-hanging fruit: "Actually, it's very easy to predict that a drag car without an engine in it would not go at all."
Respectfully,
Myriad
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Hence the reference to Alamogordo (New Mexico), which, IMO, produces some very fine examples of the vintner's trade...
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Alamogordo has something besides an airforce base? News to me. And I live in the same State.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
I grew up in Eastern NM, Went to College in Las Cruces. Alamo has a Decent Space museum for a town that size, Pistacios, and wine. North toward Tulerosa.
And Cherry Cider. (Yum!)
You've put this in a 7-month dead thread, bardamu. That must have taken some digging, when the thread that's discussing this subject is on the first page of the forum.
Are you really dense or are you just acting dense?
Are you really dense or are you just acting dense?
I was accused of spamming the nose out thread with this topic.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I'm thinking Boeing. All he'd need to do is take the known fuel volume and fit it in the known tank dimensions. That would tell you how much fuel was outside of rib 18 (?).
Do you have calculations that show him wrong? (don't say you have because you haven't)
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Your use of the word "slug" as an object that has dimensions measured in feet or meters is wrong.
"slug" is a unit of mass measured in pounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
For what it's worth (not much) he disputes * R Mackey's calculations of the size of the "slug". His basis is solely NIST claim (and his literal interpretation) of the amount of fuel outside of "rib 18".
ETA * The "slug" was not as wide as R Mackey said.
Last edited:
It's obvious that neither of you have read the slides that accompanied the show.
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:911physics_big.pdf
As I understand it, the mass of the slug of fuel is calculated from the volume, which is 120" x 16" x 14".
14" is the width of the slug, which is the same as the width of the column that's hit by the fuel. (The fuel that passes between the columns is ignored.)
120" is the length of the slug, which is the width of the fuel tank at about half way along the wing.
16" is the height of the slug, but this figure is not taken from NCSTAR 1-2B as far as I can see.
The fact that the momentum is calculated based on the average width of a wing that tapers is already a problem, since for any fuel outboard of half way, the momentum will be less than estimated. If the height of the fuel tank is also based on an average of the whole wing, the same problem is made worse. If the volume of fuel is based on a full tank, the problem is even worse, because the tank was far from full. Finally, if there was no fuel at all in the outboard tank, then no columns could have been broken by fuel alone outboard of rib 18, which is about half way along the wing.
The calculation is of the type known as "back of envelope," sometimes abbreviated as "BOE." In other words, it only provides the rough order of magnitude of the effect under study. This should be obvious, since the amount of fuel varies substantially depending on where you are in the wing.
How it was calculated is simple. NIST provides (a) a graph of the fuel tank dimensions as seen from above, (b) an estimate of the total volume of fuel in the tank, and (c) the approximate fill line of the tank. From those, one can derive a good representative estimate for a simple model.
I believe that everyone understands this except the no-planer morons, and those folks don't understand much of anything so I'm excluding them from discussion. But if there's anyone else who's confused, just ask. Thanks.
How it was calculated is simple. NIST provides (a) a graph of the fuel tank dimensions as seen from above, (b) an estimate of the total volume of fuel in the tank, and (c) the approximate fill line of the tank. From those, one can derive a good representative estimate for a simple model.
I believe that everyone understands this except the no-planer morons, and those folks don't understand much of anything so I'm excluding them from discussion. But if there's anyone else who's confused, just ask. Thanks.
Considering that no planers are the only people who would want to challenge the conclusion, this pretty much insures against the model being debunked, or to be more precise, it means the author can avoid the embarrassment of having to admit it.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Still no calculations proving him wrong? Why am I not surprised. Did you understand his slides? (I know the answer)
Last edited:
Got some physics to show an aircraft will not enter the WTC towers flying at 470 to 590 mph hitting the top third. It was studied and found speed below 200 mph would essentially repel aircraft impacts. The no plane delusion is a sign of mental illness not skepticism.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You never answered my previous question.
Are you arguing the size of the hole or If it was actually there? If it's the size then (considering you don't think there were planes) what made the hole? Don't start with the "I don't know crap", ALL pictures show the columns pushed in,meaning your explosives (giving you the benefit of the doubt not to say the holes were fake) would have to be on the outside of the building.
bardamu; Where the hell are you going with this?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That's not your calculations for what I asked. Try again.
Let me give you a hint. Know what he used for data and prove that it was unrealistic. He just told you what he used, now get to work.
Last edited: