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..)
You are the ones who demanded that Tony Szamboti withdraw his paper because the antenna of the north tower may or may not have tilted slightly before dropping, and now you accuse me of quibbling over small details. What entitles debunkers to sketch up a model on the back of an envelope, assume whatever they like, simplify as much as they like, state that it's definitive proof, then wave off any criticism by saying it was just an illustration?
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.
The important point is that the baffle rib allows the fuel to flow into the inboard side and stops it flowing back into the outboard side. You're implying that NIST's assumption is wrong. What makes you think their other assumptions are right?
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.
The model in question doesn't stand on its own. It needs the wing structure to break some of the columns. The wing structure alone has not been modelled and you're just assuming it would break the columns.
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.
For the fuel to break the columns, it would have to be in a container that is strong enough to withstand the impact. We don't have to worry about that though, since some of the broken columns couldn't have been hit by fuel at all.
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
Many people here have told me to read the NIST reports and now I use them as a source you claim their assumptions are wrong. Well, it suits me either way. If
you are wrong, I win the argument. If
NIST are wrong, that's even better.
