Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[tfk]

... I see no reason to have any further arguments on 9/11 with you. No hard feelings but I'm sure you will understand..

Hey Twin,

Do try to hide your tears at this news, OK?

Wouldn't want you having an unmanly breakdown in public...

Tom


[We should all be so lucky...]

 

[bardamu]

Poor billy boy.

Hong Zhu says in real life there was "a big shake, a rumble", and his colleague in the reconstruction says the building moved 10 feet. Maybe a bit of artistic licence there.

 

[twinstead]

Hey Twin,
Do try to hide your tears at this news, OK?

Wouldn't want you having an unmanly breakdown in public...

Well, as the inter-city folks say, better an unmanly breakdown than an unmanly breakdance...

 

[cyclonic]

Hong Zhu says in real life there was "a big shake, a rumble", and his colleague in the reconstruction says the building moved 10 feet. Maybe a bit of artistic licence there.

Where was Hong Zhu?

 

[tfk]

That wheel has to be on the exit side don't you think ? Yet there is no missing panel on the exit side as far as I know.

"... as far as [you] know ..."

Who's got the micrometers?
___

BS's "fire extinguisher save" of the WTC Towers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5XlY6DKtYA#t=4m20s

"Within 2 seconds, I realized what a ridiculous task I was trying to accomplish..."

Do you realize how ridiculous YOUR task is, bill?

Didn't think so...

 

[cyclonic]

"... as far as [you] know ..."

Who's got the micrometers?
___

BS's "fire extinguisher save" of the WTC Towers....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5XlY6DKtYA#t=4m20s

"Within 2 seconds, I realized what a ridiculous task I was trying to accomplish..."

Do you realize how ridiculous YOUR task is, bill?

Didn't think so...

I can just picture bill trying to get within fire extinquisher range but has to keep retreating due to the heat untill he eventually spontaneously combusts.

 

[bill smith]

I can just picture bill trying to get within fire extinquisher range but has to keep retreating due to the heat untill he eventually spontaneously combusts.

The guy said he took a fire extinguisher but what came out was ' a stream of fluid about a quarter of an inch wide '

I''m sure I could go to youtube right now and find much more efficient fire extinguishers, even from 2001. What do you hink ? Was the guy lying in his teeth ?

 

[bardamu]

You don't comprehend what people have been trying to tell you, do you? The model says that a single, isolated aspect of the model by itself had enough momentum to accomplish the column damage. That doesn't mean that this single, isolated element was all that was there! How you fail to comprehend this, I don't understand, but it says something real negative about your mental acuity. Again: Ryan was saying there was enough momentum available from just the fuel alone, let alone from the fuel and the jet to extert the impulse needed to sever columns. That was the whole point of his model, as well as the point of NCSTAR 1-2B, yet you continue to complain that the way the damage looked in the real world is somehow contradictory to this, when the real world damage also included the jet itself?

You really, really don't get it, do you?


You seem to be unable to understand the difference between a consequence of a model and the central point of what the model primarily covers. One more time:

You're feigning indignation to cover up the weakness of your argument. If the wing itself is needed to break some of the columns, how can a model based on the fuel alone predict that the plane will simply slice through the building?

The model's math is specifically about the core columns strength. What the jet has to get through in order to get the fuel where it could damage the core columns is something else entirely. Ryan was dealing with the momentum of the fuel against the core columns, and explicitly stated this. That there was a jet present to cut through the exterior columns doesn't invalidate Ryan's model at all.

This is a gross misrepresentation. The purpose of the model was to show that fuel alone could destroy the perimeter columns. Core columns were substituted for perimeter columns so that NIST's pressure-impulse curves could be used as a basis for the maths.

 

[cyclonic]

The guy said he took a fire extinguisher but what came out was ' a stream of fluid about a quarter of an inch wide '

I''m sure I could go to youtube right now and find much more efficient fire extinguishers, even from 2001. What do you hink ? Was the guy lying in his teeth ?

Fire extinquishers are for when a fire has just started, not 6 floor infernos.
why do you think firefighters have trucks with water and pumps to pump it?

 

[bill smith]

Fire extinquishers are for when a fire has just started, not 6 floor infernos.
why do you think firefighters have trucks with water and pumps to pump it?

I have never suggested that fire extinguishers could have put out the fires in the Twin Towers. But they certainly could have in WTC7 when the fires started. There were hundreds of firemen and hundreds of fire extinguishers available in other buildings if not WTC7 itself.

To bring the Twin Towers into the argument as if I had mentioned them in this context is a strawman.

 

[BigAl]

Is Bill demonstrating his lack of firefighting expertise again?

 

[funk de fino]

I have never suggested that fire extinguishers could have put out the fires in the Twin Towers. But they certainly could have in WTC7 when the fires started. There were hndreds of firemen and hundreds of fire extinguishers available in other buildings if not WTC7 itself.

To bring the Twin Towers into the argument as if I had mentioned them in this context is a strawman.

Unaware of what certainly means?

 

[cyclonic]

I have never suggested that fire extinguishers could have put out the fires in the Twin Towers. But they certainly could have in WTC7 when the fires started. There were hundreds of firemen and hundreds of fire extinguishers available in other buildings if not WTC7 itself.

To bring the Twin Towers into the argument as if I had mentioned them in this context is a strawman.

So you woukd run into the huge dust cloud and put out fires you can't see?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You're feigning indignation to cover up the weakness of your argument. If the wing itself is needed to break some of the columns, how can a model based on the fuel alone predict that the plane will simply slice through the building?

Go read the model again, Bard. Understand the concepts of momentum and impulse. See if you can comprehend the point that if there's enough energy available to destroy something stronger, it can destroy something weaker.

On top of that, read NCSTAR 1-2B. We've recommended you do this how many times now? If you do, you'll see that the NIST information - from which Ryan took for his own presentation - also covers the case where some of the wing is empty. In fact, that section explicitiy covers three different fuel distribution cases. You'd know this if you would have read the report.

This is a gross misrepresentation. The purpose of the model was to show that fuel alone could destroy the perimeter columns. Core columns were substituted for perimeter columns so that NIST's pressure-impulse curves could be used as a basis for the maths.

Gross misrepresentation, huh? "The purpose of the model was to show that fuel alone could destroy the perimeter columns."... One more time:

• The section of the NIST report where Ryan got his information:
  
  
  
  
  
• A slide from his presentation:
  
  
  

Didn't know it was a "gross misrepresentation" to point out what was explicitly said. But hey, that's being rational rather than being a truther. Keep trying, bub.

 

[bardamu]

Go read the model again, Bard. Understand the concepts of momentum and impulse. See if you can comprehend the point that if there's enough energy available to destroy something stronger, it can destroy something weaker.

Just because a mathematical model shows that in theory something strong can be destroyed if it's hit with enough energy, it doesn't mean that any amount of damage can be caused in any impact. It's not reasonable to conclude from the model that the plane can't do other than "slice through the building".

On top of that, read NCSTAR 1-2B. We've recommended you do this how many times now? If you do, you'll see that the NIST information - from which Ryan took for his own presentation - also covers the case where some of the wing is empty. In fact, that section explicitiy covers three different fuel distribution cases. You'd know this if you would have read the report.

NIST is not the problem here. It's the slug of fuel model that doesn't cover different fuel distribution cases. It assumes that each broken column was hit by an average volume of fuel, when in fact a considerable section of each wing was empty.

Gross misrepresentation, huh? "The purpose of the model was to show that fuel alone could destroy the perimeter columns."... One more time:

The section of the NIST report where Ryan got his information:

A slide from his presentation:

Didn't know it was a "gross misrepresentation" to point out what was explicitly said. But hey, that's being rational rather than being a truther. Keep trying, bub.

You're misrepresenting the presentation by ignoring the conclusion that was drawn from it:

So what we conclude at the end of this exercise is the damage we see is completely credible..."

We can't see the damage to the core columns, so he can only be talking about the perimeter columns.

The exercise completely disregards the wing, so he can only be saying that it's credible for the damage to have been caused by fuel alone.

If he wants to include the wings, then the wings should be part of the exercise.

 

[DGM]

If he wants to include the wings, then the wings should be part of the exercise.

You don't understand the physic and the math in the simple form. That was the whole idea. To explain it to people that have no concept of physics. Apparently even this flies over your head.

 

[NutCracker]

Reassurance needed

It seems we are witnessing an individual who is so dense that he surely is contracted within his Schwarzschild radius. I am very worried that a black hole made of pure, 100% stupidity is a major threat to mankind, earth and maybe even the universe at large.

Is somebody here able to reassure me? Does such a black hole emit something akin to Hawking radiation and leaks to oblivion? If so, is said radiation harmless? Is such a black hole so small that it is only able to have accumulated an acceptable amount of anti-knowledge, say -1 MB, in the 4 billion years the earth has left? Is their some natural barrier that prevents the silliness it contains and the world's knowledge to annihilate in a apocalyptic explosion?

Sorry for being OT, but I believe this is really a life or death situation.

Thank you.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

At this point, the only thing any rational person could conclude is that you refuse to try to understand.

Just because a mathematical model shows that in theory something strong can be destroyed if it's hit with enough energy, it doesn't mean that any amount of damage can be caused in any impact. It's not reasonable to conclude from the model that the plane can't do other than "slice through the building".

Pure nonsense. The whole point of the model is to demonstrate the amount of momentum involved. The amount of energy imparted is sufficient to break core columns. Perimeter columns are weaker.

Reasonable people cannot fail to understand this. You are obviously unreasonable. You fail to accept that weaker cases are destroyed when energy suffices to destroy stronger cases. That is your failing, not Ryan's or anyone elses.

NIST is not the problem here. It's the slug of fuel model that doesn't cover different fuel distribution cases. It assumes that each broken column was hit by an average volume of fuel, when in fact a considerable section of each wing was empty.

Still haven't read the report, have you? If you did, you wouldn't have said this. Hint: Look for the section of chapter 10 where they describe the various differing fuel loadings.

You're misrepresenting the presentation by ignoring the conclusion that was drawn from it:

I'm misrepresenting the presentation to illustrate what is specifically, explicitly, unambiguously stated about it? All people have to do is look at my post, post 1174, and see the explicit statements. "Simplified analysis of core damage"... "Demonstrates that, at this speed, fuel alone can plausibly fail core columns"... it doesn't get any clearer, Bard.

We can't see the damage to the core columns, so he can only be talking about the perimeter columns.

Which is why Ryan presents a mathematical model. Duh. When you know the characteristics of an object, you can create models based on those characteristics. That was the whole point of his demonstration: To illustrate simplified modeling. You missed this point by such a large margin that no one reading your posts can fail to see that your only objective is to misrepresent Ryan's presentation.

The exercise completely disregards the wing, so he can only be saying that it's credible for the damage to have been caused by fuel alone.

If he wants to include the wings, then the wings should be part of the exercise.

The wings add mass and are the carrier of the fuel. But again, Ryan's point is about the amount of momentum available, regardless of how it is carried, and that it's sufficient to destroy the strongest elements: The core columns. He's explicitly, unambiguously stated this. His data is taken from a report that states this. His math uses values based the core columns and the calculated momentum. The only reason you're making the arguments you do is because you cannot challenge the math. You cannot show that the fuel has insufficient momentum to create damage. You haven't even tried. You haven't read the original data, you haven't tried to comprehend the point of his presentation, and you've drawn up a nonsensical argument to give the appearance of debate. There is none here. You've not presented a case that negates Ryan's.

Until you can take his math and show an error, or unless you can show that the properties of the columns that NIST provided and Ryan used are incorrect, then you have no argument. None. Zero. If you want to salvage anything from your point, then either show a math error on Ryan's part, or show that the columns properties were different. Anything else is blowing hot air, and you've done enough of that.

Don't bother replying to this unless you can show math errors or show that the properties are other than what NIST said. There's nothing else to argue, and you've been corrected enough times already. Unless you post something pertinent to either of those, you will not get any further responses. The most I'll do is bump old posts if I feel like it.

 

[triforcharity]

What is there to say that the perimeter columns were not tampered with allowing a real plane to penetrate as we saw ? (Or thought we saw)

Can you please explain (according to your beliefs) how they could accurately do this? I mean, according to you, it would have taken many passes just to hit the damn building. How could they have accurately deciphered where to tamper with the exterrior columns?

They couldn't. Face it Bill, you are wrong again.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Tri, you haven't stundied that yet have you?
If not can I do it?