Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[TruthersLie]

Isn't this model just theoretical to make a point?
Wasn't the model just to show the fuel alone could cut the columns not to actually show the fuel DID cut the columns.

Not for nothing, I'm sure there is plenty of equipment past rib 18 besides aluminum. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to take a Vickers motor to the head at 500+ MPH.

As far as liquids cutting steel. You better tell these guys they are wasting their time.

That is just a GREAT in your face moment with them cutting the star of david to begin...

ROFLMAO.

 

[bardamu]

Hmmm, so why are you even bothered arguing about it. If you think its a waste of time, then forget about it.

It would only be a waste of time if we had proof that perimeter columns could have been broken by the empty fuel tanks. We don't have that proof, so what we have here is smoke & mirrors rather than a waste of time. It's worth arguing with people who are in the business of providing smoke & mirrors.

If you are not a no-planer then why bother even arguing? Or is this a personal thing? To be honest, Im not entirely sure what your point is. If the math is incorrect, for what it is, then please indicate where. That really would turn this into an interesting thread, you may even get a reply from Mackey himself.

I say flying anvils could have broken the perimeter columns. Prove me wrong using maths.

From what I can make out, your arguing about something that isnt even relevant to the example presented by Mr Mackey (Dr Mackey?)

Mr Mackey and Mr Wieck concluded from the model that the plane had to slice through the building.

Isn't this model just theoretical to make a point?
Wasn't the model just to show the fuel alone could cut the columns not to actually show the fuel DID cut the columns.

If the model doesn't show how all the broken columns could have been broken, how can it be concluded that the plane had to slice through the building?

Not for nothing, I'm sure there is plenty of equipment past rib 18 besides aluminum. I don't know about you, but I'd hate to take a Vickers motor to the head at 500+ MPH.

Do we have to guess where the Vickers motor was attached to the wing, or are you going to tell us?

As far as liquids cutting steel. You better tell these guys they are wasting their time.

Does this video show that liquids COULD have cut the perimeter columns or that liquids DID cut the perimeter columns?

 

[DGM]

It would only be a waste of time if we had proof that perimeter columns could have been broken by the empty fuel tanks. We don't have that proof, so what we have here is smoke & mirrors rather than a waste of time. It's worth arguing with people who are in the business of providing smoke & mirrors.


?

The pictures of the towers post collision and the fact the planes entered the towers proves this. The fact you don't want to believe it does not constitute lack of proof.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers in bold:

It would only be a waste of time if we had proof that perimeter columns could have been broken by the empty fuel tanks. We don't have that proof, so what we have here is smoke & mirrors rather than a waste of time. It's worth arguing with people who are in the business of providing smoke & mirrors.

Considering the fact that you claim that the fuel tanks were "empty", then that would suggest that the plane never took off. Smoke & mirrors, isn't that what the TM does constantly?

I say flying anvils could have broken the perimeter columns. Prove me wrong using maths.

Unless you're names Wile E. Coyote, then it's possible in a cartoon.

Mr Mackey and Mr Wieck concluded from the model that the plane had to slice through the building.

That's exactly what happens when a plane impacts a structure going at about 500 mph.

If the model doesn't show how all the broken columns could have been broken, how can it be concluded that the plane had to slice through the building?

Because the outter columns were held with nuts & bolts which would snap off.

Do we have to guess where the Vickers motor was attached to the wing, or are you going to tell us?

You just said it was attached to the wing.

Does this video show that liquids COULD have cut the perimeter columns or that liquids DID cut the perimeter columns?

Liquids would cut steel at a very high pressure with a pressure nozzle at a mill. But not with a plane traveling at about 500 mph.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The pictures of the towers post collision and the fact the planes entered the towers proves this. The fact you don't want to believe it does not constitute lack of proof.

One would think that dozens of videos from different angles of this exact event would be enough.

 

[Furcifer]

How big an anvil and how fast? It's apparent you don't know what parameters are. Don't you feel kinda foolish saying stuff like this in front of your man crush?

 

[Furcifer]

@chewie- we've got a steam leak in an intermediate pressure line at work. Even steam, given enough time, will cut steel.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

@chewie- we've got a steam leak in an intermediate pressure line at work. Even steam, given enough time, will cut steel.

Yup, given enough time it would!

 

[rwguinn]

@chewie- we've got a steam leak in an intermediate pressure line at work. Even steam, given enough time, will cut steel.

Ok, the fuel will BREAK the steel, not cut it, at that speed. Lots of kinetic energy and momentum there.
Hell-ocean waves bend and tear steel all the time. Don't believe it\? Leave your car at the water's edge during na hurricane (Tie it down really6 well, though, lest it disappear)-and the water doesn't have near the velocity of 500 mph fuel...
Chewie--back to physics class, please...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ok, the fuel will BREAK the steel, not cut it, at that speed. Lots of kinetic energy and momentum there.
Hell-ocean waves bend and tear steel all the time. Don't believe it\? Leave your car at the water's edge during na hurricane (Tie it down really6 well, though, lest it disappear)-and the water doesn't have near the velocity of 500 mph fuel...
Chewie--back to physics class, please...

You mean back to looking at videos like this one:

 

[bardamu]

The pictures of the towers post collision and the fact the planes entered the towers proves this. The fact you don't want to believe it does not constitute lack of proof.

One would think that dozens of videos from different angles of this exact event would be enough.

The videos are not enough. That's why we were presented with the 'slug of fuel' model, which aims to prove that it would have been possible if the fuel tanks had been full at the time.

How big an anvil and how fast? It's apparent you don't know what parameters are. Don't you feel kinda foolish saying stuff like this in front of your man crush?

I should have made it clear that I meant a 500lb forging anvil travelling at 500mph.

 

[bardamu]

You mean back to looking at videos like this one:

Do you think it would be more convenient to fit the planes with abrasive high-speed water jets than to attach forging anvils to the wings?

 

[Furcifer]

I should have made it clear that I meant a 500lb forging anvil travelling at 500mph.

Well even that can be proven using math. You'd need to consider the size of the anvil in relation to the wall. then determine the probability of it not striking a wall, therfore not severing a column.

Of course that's pointless to do if you have video of it STRIKING THE COLUMN!

Bard you seem like an intelligent guy, you must know this is futile. Even, if you bring your A game, and get me to consider I didn't see a plane strike the building, there's a mountain of evidence that contradicts this, and then you have to explain the passengers, and the manifests and the passport and the luggage and the missing planes. Why fake the planes, when it's so much easier just to use them?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Do you think it would be more convenient to fit the planes with abrasive high-speed water jets than to attach forging anvils to the wings?

Can you get even more hilarious Bard? And I mean that in a good way!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ok, the fuel will BREAK the steel, not cut it, at that speed. Lots of kinetic energy and momentum there.
Hell-ocean waves bend and tear steel all the time. Don't believe it\? Leave your car at the water's edge during na hurricane (Tie it down really6 well, though, lest it disappear)-and the water doesn't have near the velocity of 500 mph fuel...
Chewie--back to physics class, please...

I doubt many people here understand the difference between "cut" and shear.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

All the above posts are off topic. The title of the thread is: "Hardfire: Physics of 9/11". Ryan likes people to stay on topic in his threads.

This is what a person who is being humiliated by his own ignorance and is desperately trying to change the subject looks like.

In response to the post of mine that you quoted (and that you subsequently lied about, saying that it was off topic), do you or do you not understand how meat and feathers can shred aluminum?

 

[rwguinn]

I doubt many people here understand the difference between "cut" and shear.

I was, in my enigmatic way, actually referring to the diffuse (relatively) nature of the fluid, as opposed to a narrow, continuous high pressure stream--but you are correct, sir...

 

[DGM]

The videos are not enough. That's why we were presented with the 'slug of fuel' model, which aims to prove that it would have been possible if the fuel tanks had been full at the time.

.

Yet again you show your inability to understand what people have been telling you. That's not what the model was for (as you have been told countless times)

 

[BadBoy]

It would only be a waste of time if we had proof that perimeter columns could have been broken by the empty fuel tanks. We don't have that proof, so what we have here is smoke & mirrors rather than a waste of time. It's worth arguing with people who are in the business of providing smoke & mirrors.

(sigh, the lights are on........ but no ones home)


How would you prove that a jet liners wings with the suggested fuel arrangement could rip through steel columns of a structure identical to the twin towers? Ultimately you could build a tower and fly a plane into it to see what happens.

But hay, we already have an example of this! We dont need to build a tower because we have all the proof required. Its in the public domain. Jeeeeezz. I could think up dozens of ways that a conspiracy could have planned such an event, or one similar, and none of them would include imaginary planes and/or hidden explosives. I know you really really Really want there to be a conspiracy... you just picked the wrong one here bud. You need to find another mission in life, this particular picadillo been answered years back amigo.

Of course, you could always use some math to model what approximately would happen, it would be cheaper. Oh, wait a minute, thats already been done too, and guess what, the theory fits the real world quite well too.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It would only be a waste of time if we had proof that perimeter columns could have been broken by the empty fuel tanks. We don't have that proof, so what we have here is smoke & mirrors rather than a waste of time. It's worth arguing with people who are in the business of providing smoke & mirrors.




I say flying anvils could have broken the perimeter columns. Prove me wrong using maths.




Mr Mackey and Mr Wieck concluded from the model that the plane had to slice through the building.




If the model doesn't show how all the broken columns could have been broken, how can it be concluded that the plane had to slice through the building?




Do we have to guess where the Vickers motor was attached to the wing, or are you going to tell us?




Does this video show that liquids COULD have cut the perimeter columns or that liquids DID cut the perimeter columns?

Bardamu, why would you try to argue that the wings could not punch through the perimeter columns? The aluminum would strain harden and the fuel at 500 mph has a lot of momentum.

Many of the columns were actually broken due to high moments being applied to them. Just imagine a heavy tree stump launched at high velocity at a light pole. It will take it down by applying a large moment to it's base and failing those connections. This happens even though the light pole is made of harder material.

The fact that the fuel and aluminum is softer than the steel of the columns is not of major consequence here and Ryan Mackey was correct in showing that.