Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[bardamu]

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.

Most of the broken columns were sheared off clean without being pushed in at all. How did the aluminium wings do that?

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.

He hasn't told me where he got the figure of 16" from. The fuel couldn't have been 16" deep all along the full length of the wing. Did he take it from half way? Did he ignore NIST's observation that the outboard tanks would have been empty?

 

[DGM]

Most of the broken columns were sheared off clean without being pushed in at all. How did the aluminium wings do that?

His model shows how. Show me how they couldn't.

He hasn't told me where he got the figure of 16" from. The fuel couldn't have been 16" deep all along the full length of the wing. Did he take it from half way? Did he ignore NIST's observation that the outboard tanks would have been empty?

Yes he did. Read back a few posts.

Everyone is watching you squirm.

 

[DGM]

What bardamu, still thinking? I hope your putting together some very conclusive reply because so far, not so much.

No pressure but, the "readers" are waiting.

 

[beachnut]

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?

What explosive pulls the outside of building in? Magic explosive.

A new level of stupidity has to be reached to ignore an impact that is exactly the size and shape a 590 mph 767 would make.

Your point is clear, what makes the exact hole see on 911 and leaves big clues around NYC.

Then the big clue! Videos of a 767 hitting the WTC. Then the big killer for the idiots who spew the no plane theory. How on earth did someone fake a jet fuel fireball exactly the same size as 66,000 pounds of fuel traveling at 590 mph? I mean faking the kinetic energy impact is even more spectacular when you come down to hard things to fake, but the jet fuel fireball is hard to fake; how do you get 66,000 pounds of jet fuel up high in the WTC tower if you don't bring a plane.

NWO operative, "please move your desk mr. b we need to set up the 66,000 pounds of jet fuel for ... the NWO operative moves into place 25 400 gallon tanks, about the size of Hot Tubs, each weighing about 3000 pounds, and wires them up...

Truthers never get past asking dirt dumb questions. None have a clue as they cheerfully follow liars as they warn us against following some unknown bad actors they can't define but know we are in cahoots with them.

Got physics; a basic understanding of models could save them some embarrassment.

 

[bardamu]

What bardamu, still thinking? I hope your putting together some very conclusive reply because so far, not so much.

You still haven't addressed the paradox of how an empty fuel tank could smash through a row of columns using momentum from fuel alone.

Using the dimensions given in NIST's diagram on page 86 of NCSTAR 1-2B and reproduced in Mackey's slides, baffle rib 18 is 507" from the centre of the fuselage, and 428" from the wing tip. In other words, it's slightly on the outboard side of half way.

Now look at the diagram showing the observed damage to the building on page 1xxxi. Continue the line of the tail downwards then measure from the centre of the fuselage to just past half way towards the left wing tip, and you'll see that 5 or 6 columns are broken outboard of where rib 18 would have hit. In the case of the right wing of flight 11, even more columns were broken by the section of wing outboard of rib 18.

We know from NIST that there was no fuel outboard of rib 18, so these 5 or 6 columns couldn't have been broken by the fuel. That means the whole exercise is a total waste of time. What Mackey needs to do is take the first broken column counting inwards from the wing tip, estimate which section of wing would have collided with that column, then build a model of the collision between the wing and the empty fuel tank against the column. That would be a best scenario for the survival of the columns, at least as far as the wings are concerned. To be thorough, he'd have to prove that the front section of fuselage could have pushed its way through columns, spandrels and at least one concrete floor.

I'm not claiming this proves there were no planes. I'm saying that this particular model serves no purpose whatsoever and it should be abandoned. The people here have confirmed that, by playing down its importance rather than defend it. If it was truthers who were refusing to let go of an argument with so many holes in it, they'd be told they must be suffering from the Irreducible Delusion.

 

[triforcharity]

I bet if I flung my F250 at ~500 MPH it would break the column connections and und up inside the building.

 

[DGM]

You still haven't addressed the paradox of how an empty fuel tank could smash through a row of columns using momentum from fuel alone.

Using the dimensions given in NIST's diagram on page 86 of NCSTAR 1-2B and reproduced in Mackey's slides, baffle rib 18 is 507" from the centre of the fuselage, and 428" from the wing tip. In other words, it's slightly on the outboard side of half way.

Now look at the diagram showing the observed damage to the building on page 1xxxi. Continue the line of the tail downwards then measure from the centre of the fuselage to just past half way towards the left wing tip, and you'll see that 5 or 6 columns are broken outboard of where rib 18 would have hit. In the case of the right wing of flight 11, even more columns were broken by the section of wing outboard of rib 18.

We know from NIST that there was no fuel outboard of rib 18, so these 5 or 6 columns couldn't have been broken by the fuel. That means the whole exercise is a total waste of time. What Mackey needs to do is take the first broken column counting inwards from the wing tip, estimate which section of wing would have collided with that column, then build a model of the collision between the wing and the empty fuel tank against the column. That would be a best scenario for the survival of the columns, at least as far as the wings are concerned. To be thorough, he'd have to prove that the front section of fuselage could have pushed its way through columns, spandrels and at least one concrete floor.

I'm not claiming this proves there were no planes. I'm saying that this particular model serves no purpose whatsoever and it should be abandoned. The people here have confirmed that, by playing down its importance rather than defend it. If it was truthers who were refusing to let go of an argument with so many holes in it, they'd be told they must be suffering from the Irreducible Delusion.

The model proves exactly what it was developed to prove. The fact you don't understand this is not our problem. If you want me to explain the model just ask, I (or someone else) will be happy to do so.

Why don't you start to prove what you say is the case? If the damage is inconsistent with a plane traveling the universally accepted speed, please for the love of god tell us why. Not your opinion, facts and math.

 

[beachnut]

...
We know from NIST that there was no fuel outboard of rib 18, so these 5 or 6 columns couldn't have been broken by the fuel. ...

That is a lie. NIST said they assumed the fuel was all inboard. Sorry, there could have been thousands of pounds of fuel out side rib 18; it does not matter we have an impact hole from Flight 175 and nothing you can do will change the damage, and the fact Flight 175 did the damage seen 911.

You are making errors about what NIST said so your model is suffering from the Irreducible Delusion. Why are you hung up on Mackey? What did he do?; ruin your delusions on 911? Learn what models are for and stop beating a dead horse. Admit you have no point but to discredit Mackey; a personal attack veiled in your post. Report yourself if that is your primary purpose, stop exposing your anti-intellectual drive to prove nothing?

Why do you attack Mackey who can quickly do calculations you can't understand but you sure mess them up with some moronic empty tank with fuel momentum nonsense as if you have a some hang up.

How much does the wing weigh outside of rib 18? What is the energy that that section brings to the table. You actually are into NIST what did they get wrong.

Do you understand Flight 175 hit the WTC and caused the damage seen?

Do you understand erratic flight by the terrorists could cause more fuel to be retained outside rib 18?

Do you have the drain rate at the baffle? What level does the inboard section have to be at for fuel to drain? Why is there a baffle? Did a Boeing engineer sign off on the amount of fuel outside rib 18? Drain rate please at your convenience?

This thread is about physics education, not for you and I to expose your lack of skill and understanding in models. Start you own thread (OMG, not really) for you delusional attacks on models; title it "Models and why I can't Understand them". good luck

I bet if I flung my F250 at ~500 MPH it would break the column connections and und up inside the building.

45 pounds of TNT at impact, in the shape of a F250. What is cross sectional energy per inch compared to the 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy the F175 cross section brings? Bet the hood leaves before you get much past 250 knots if not sooner.

The 767 is like your truck 155 feet long, a little longer, and with wet wings that carry 66,000 pounds of fuel. The fuel alone is like 11 trucks.

A plane is streamlined concentrating the energy in a small cross section.

 

[A W Smith]

You still haven't addressed the paradox of how an empty fuel tank could smash through a row of columns using momentum from fuel alone..

You still have not addressed why the empty portion of the wing couldn't break through the columns. Got math? so far all you got is an argument from ignorance. which of course. is a logical fallacy.

 

[dafydd]

.
The straight down gravitational collapse. I think it is obviously IMPOSSIBLE, but this 9/11 psychosis has gripped the planet.

I'm thinking if I cut the cardboard tubes from toilet tissue rolls down to 1 inch lengths and use them as supports between the hard drives they would provide crushable supports to resist the falling mass. The hard drives would provide the inertial mass. I could even use hard drives separated by toilet roll tubes for my falling mass to collapse upon itself like the top of the north tower had to.

psik

Stundie!

 

[dafydd]

The model proves exactly what it was developed to prove. The fact you don't understand this is not our problem. If you want me to explain the model just ask, I (or someone else) will be happy to do so.

Why don't you start to prove what you say is the case? If the damage is inconsistent with a plane traveling the universally accepted speed, please for the love of god tell us why. Not your opinion, facts and math.

Facts and math? No chance.

 

[Edx]

Stundie!

But doesnt a studie have to be serious?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

what part of

"it is a simplified model designed to demonstrate basic principles in under an hour" do you not understand?

is it "it?" or "is?" or "a?" or "simplified?" or "model?" or "designed?" .... Which part do you not understand?


If you want the FULL equations go to the NIST report... that only took YEARS to do.

This "simplified model" is just that, a simplified model. It doesn't have to match exactly with reality.

 

[bardamu]

Why don't you start to prove what you say is the case? If the damage is inconsistent with a plane traveling the universally accepted speed, please for the love of god tell us why. Not your opinion, facts and math.

I've proved my case. The damage is not consistent with the known fuel load travelling at 500mph

That is a lie. NIST said they assumed the fuel was all inboard. Sorry, there could have been thousands of pounds of fuel out side rib 18; it does not matter we have an impact hole from Flight 175 and nothing you can do will change the damage, and the fact Flight 175 did the damage seen 911.

Please refer to Figure 4-34 on page 97 and Figure 4-35 on page 88 of NCSTAR 1-2B.

How much does the wing weigh outside of rib 18? What is the energy that that section brings to the table

This is an interesting question, but not relevant to the Hardfire Physics of 9/11 show. The structure of the aircraft was disregarded in the model that was presented there.

Do you understand erratic flight by the terrorists could cause more fuel to be retained outside rib 18?

It's clear from this that you don't know how a baffle rib works. NIST: "The terrorist pilots likely performed extreme flight maneuvers prior to impact, causing most of the fuel to flow inboard." (page 88)

Do you have the drain rate at the baffle? What level does the inboard section have to be at for fuel to drain? Why is there a baffle? Did a Boeing engineer sign off on the amount of fuel outside rib 18? Drain rate please at your convenience?

You need to take this up with NIST.

You still have not addressed why the empty portion of the wing couldn't break through the columns. Got math? so far all you got is an argument from ignorance. which of course. is a logical fallacy.

I've yet to see a model claiming to show that the empty portion of the wing could break through the columns. I wonder why...

This "simplified model" is just that, a simplified model. It doesn't have to match exactly with reality.

The model fails. It's supposed to prove that fuel alone could have caused the observed damage. Now the wing itself is being brought in without any calculations to support the conclusion. Following the scientific method, the model should be scrapped.

 

[TruthersLie]

Most of the broken columns were sheared off clean without being pushed in at all. How did the aluminium wings do that?

prove it.

Please provide images which support your bs claim.

then show us that empty wings on a 767/757 moving 500 mph all by themselves wouldn't break/shear off those columns.

I eagerly await your thesis.

 

[TruthersLie]

The model fails. It's supposed to prove that fuel alone could have caused the observed damage. Now the wing itself is being brought in without any calculations to support the conclusion. Following the scientific method, the model should be scrapped.

Yet again YOU FAIL.

please look up simplified model and read the defintion.

Just like you need to look up gradual, momentum and architectural footprint.

The model does EXACTLY what it is supposed to do... I"m sorry that you are too ignorant/uneducated to understand the basic premise of the model.

ROFLMAO ace... go back to school.

 

[DGM]

I've proved my case. The damage is not consistent with the known fuel load travelling at 500mph

.

Just saying that you did does not prove your case. Reading your post show us differently. Care to try again?


ETA Some of your responses to me should have been attributed to beachnut.

 

[bardamu]

Just saying that you did does not prove your case. Reading your post show us differently. Care to try again?

I can't really do any more. If I said:

"Black is black",

you'd just answer:

"No, you're wrong. Black is white."

ETA Some of your responses to me should have been attributed to beachnut.

Sorry about that. It's through merging several replies into one post.

Here are the beachnut quotes and my comments:

Do you understand erratic flight by the terrorists could cause more fuel to be retained outside rib 18?

It's clear from this that you don't know how a baffle rib works. NIST: "The terrorist pilots likely performed extreme flight maneuvers prior to impact, causing most of the fuel to flow inboard." (page 88)

Do you have the drain rate at the baffle? What level does the inboard section have to be at for fuel to drain? Why is there a baffle? Did a Boeing engineer sign off on the amount of fuel outside rib 18? Drain rate please at your convenience?

You need to take this up with NIST.

 

[DGM]

I can't really do any more. If I said:

"Black is black",

you'd just answer:

"No, you're wrong. Black is white."

The problem is your arguing against his model without offering any alternative. The model shows that fuel alone could sever the columns ,not that it would make the exact size hole as observed. R Mackey never said it would.

Putting aside the size and shape of the hole, Do you agree that the fuel alone could sever columns?

Sorry about that. It's through merging several replies into one post.

No problem

 

[beachnut]

It's clear from this that you don't know how a baffle rib works. NIST: "The terrorist pilots likely performed extreme flight maneuvers prior to impact, causing most of the fuel to flow inboard." (page 88)

...

I have flown thousand of hours in Boeing Heavy Jets, as a pilot and instructor since 1976. I have known how baffles work before you ever had your first moronic delusions about 911. (I am an engineer, a trained accident investigator, a ATP rated pilot, you may of missed my point which was as valid as the NIST assumptions; BUT it makes no difference you can't change the damage done by Flight 175, it really happened the way we see on video; does not matter where the fuel was) The very fact you quibble about small details why avoiding your final futility of your conclusions is proof you have nothing. (clue..)

I read the NIST report and saw there is only one tank as you messed up your model and called the wing tank two tanks. You are confused or sloppy.

The NIST fuel model is an assumption did a Boeing engineer sign off on the assumption? What is the rate of transfer at the baffle? If you want to quibble about fuel bring on the facts and stop confusing the tank as two tanks; your model suffers.

This thread is about education, you insist on proving what? It is funny as you say what your goal is it prove your lack of knowledge and understanding.

Just state your overall conclusions on 911 and then continue; own up to your ideas; be proud.

The best part is a model stands on it's own, you are hung up on attacking Mackey and fail to realize the hole in the WTC is the product of Flight 175 impacting at up-to 590 mph.

Do you understand models?
You are saying the outer section of the wing did something without fuel in it; SO? By pursuing this idiotic quest you prove you lack of knowledge in science.

It is impossible to have fuel flying along at 590 mph all by itself for very long. But with models we can do almost anything we want. By modeling the fuel by itself I assume (NIST made assumptions to model stuff too - I can see you have fodder to keep your delusions happy for a long time) it is a container of zero mass to keep it ready to hit something. I can do this it is my model. For a truther not to have the capability of understanding a model yet fall for no-planes, thermite, beam weapons and more outrageous claptrap is sad their imagination fails to make the transition to REALITY.

I can't waste time (oops I failed) on your failure; you are attacking a model with assumptions made by NIST. ?? You don't even accept NIST as being correct anyway so your attack is based on your own failed delusions. It makes my head hurt as I try to think of how ironic your attack on Mackey is. WWSD? Wait, WWMSD!~ LOL