Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[funk de fino]

Tony Szamboti debunking!!

It must be Xmas. Have a good one Tony.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

Thank you, Tony. I would like to add that the shear force due to the impact may have been controlling, rather than a bending moment.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It must be Xmas. Have a good one Tony.

[derail]Seconded BTW...
I'll have to make a set of x-mas cards for everybody
[/derail]

 

[bardamu]

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.

You've identified one reason why my theoretical 'anvil' model fails when it's applied to the real world. Chewbacca's theoretical 'cutter jet' model also fails miserably when it's subjected to the same kind of reality test.

Now apply the same logic to the theoretical 'slug of fuel' model. Consider the size of the fuel tank in relation to the wall, then determine which columns could have been hit by fuel. It turns out that 5 or 6 broken columns along each wing gash were hit by an empty fuel tank.

The conclusion is that these columns could not have been destroyed by anvils, cutter jets or fuel. Unless you have a convincing model showing that an empty fuel tank would break perimeter columns, you're not justified to say the planes had to slice through the buildings.

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?

These points are for another thread. I'm concerned with the Hardfire presentation, which I believe was designed to deliberately mislead the viewers.

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?

If you have a BOE model showing that the perimeter columns could have been destroyed by Christmas turkeys, please show us your maths.

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)

Do you believe that R Mackey and R Wieck were justified to draw such a definitive conclusion from a model that was meant to be nothing more than an illustration?

(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.

Have you anything to add to the discussion?

 

[DGM]

Do you believe that R Mackey and R Wieck were justified to draw such a definitive conclusion from a model that was meant to be nothing more than an illustration?

Yes, Isn't that the purpose of a model. "Definitive" is a stretch by the way.

 

[Furcifer]

The conclusion is that these columns could not have been destroyed by anvils, cutter jets or fuel. Unless you have a convincing model showing that an empty fuel tank would break perimeter columns, you're not justified to say the planes had to slice through the buildings.

Why would you need a model, when there's incontrovertible evidence that this did indeed happen. (assuming your hypothetical, if there was no fuel in the wing, we still have evidence it broke through the columns)

It's been a while, so someone feel free to refresh me, but I thought the idea of the slug model was to show that the fuel alone had enough "energy" to break through the columns. You seem to want to concentrate that available energy in certain areas so that it can't be used in others. To what end exactly?

 

[twinstead]

I'm with 3bodyproblem. We have irrefutable evidence, including eye-witness, video, and physical evidence that the planes did exactly what they were observed doing that day. I could give a rat's ass about bardamu's silly rhetorical and semantic games.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm with 3bodyproblem. We have irrefutable evidence, including eye-witness, video, and physical evidence that the planes did exactly what they were observed doing that day. I could give a rat's ass about bardamu's silly rhetorical and semantic games.

I wish he'd just get to the point. Either he's trying to discredit Ryan, or he's leading up to a theory. My guess is the latter, because as I read over the thread he seems consumed over the idea that the planes couldn't have penetrated exterior as easily as they did. It seems to imply either the planes themselves were some how "beefed" up, or the building itself was compromised to such an extent as to allow the columns to be severed.

 

[twinstead]

I wish he'd just get to the point. Either he's trying to discredit Ryan, or he's leading up to a theory. My guess is the latter, because as I read over the thread he seems consumed over the idea that the planes couldn't have penetrated exterior as easily as they did. It seems to imply either the planes themselves were some how "beefed" up, or the building itself was compromised to such an extent as to allow the columns to be severed.

Yea. Either theory would be delightfully ridiculous; I can't wait.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Chewbacca's theoretical 'cutter jet' model also fails miserably when it's subjected to the same kind of reality test.

Ummm but I did present a video of a water jet actually cutting stuff. What did you present Bard? Oh that's right, NOTHING!

 

[DGM]

I wish he'd just get to the point. Either he's trying to discredit Ryan, or he's leading up to a theory. My guess is the latter, because as I read over the thread he seems consumed over the idea that the planes couldn't have penetrated exterior as easily as they did. It seems to imply either the planes themselves were some how "beefed" up, or the building itself was compromised to such an extent as to allow the columns to be severed.

Or that the holes weren't caused by a plane!!!!!!!

 

[rwguinn]

I wish he'd just get to the point. Either he's trying to discredit Ryan, or he's leading up to a theory. My guess is the latter, because as I read over the thread he seems consumed over the idea that the planes couldn't have penetrated exterior as easily as they did. It seems to imply either the planes themselves were some how "beefed" up, or the building itself was compromised to such an extent as to allow the columns to be severed.

A truther actually having a "theory" ?
Not possible on this space-time line...

 

[BadBoy]

Have you anything to add to the discussion?

Hay , I gota do something while CALL of DUTY MODERN WARFARE 2 is installing, and taking cheap shots at numbnuts like yourself is always fun. (BTW, I spent some time reading Ryans slides. I really enjoyed it. Tried to spend the time to educate myself. So im not just shooting off my mouth)

So, if you are not a noplaner, and you think there maybe an issue with the observable impact damage, what exactly is your point? Thats all Im asking. Wheres all this leading to?

 

[Justin39640]

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

(raises hand)
cutting is when you remove material to separate and shear is when you rip it?

I say "cut" more in a slang way not to imply it was "cut" like using a sawzall. I'm sure many others do too.

 

[bardamu]

Tried to spend the time to educate myself.

You didn't try hard enough.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Have you anything to add to the discussion?

Give us a reasonable discussion, and we'll be happy to add to it.

 

[TruthersLie]

You didn't try hard enough.

This from someone who doesn't understand
simplified model
architectural footprint
gradually
symmetrically
uniform

and a whole host of other topics... oh the irony...

 

[bardamu]

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.

Tony, in this thread I haven't been arguing that the wings couldn't punch through the columns. I've been pointing out that the 'slug of fuel' model alone can't account for the damage to the walls. I believe that Mackey and Wieck were deliberately misleading the viewers when they made that claim. As far as I know, no model exists to show that the wings alone could have broken perimeter columns.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, in this thread I haven't been arguing that the wings couldn't punch through the columns. I've been pointing out that the 'slug of fuel' model alone can't account for the damage to the walls. I believe that Mackey and Wieck were deliberately misleading the viewers when they made that claim. As far as I know, no model exists to show that the wings alone could have broken perimeter columns.

A simple stress analysis can show that they could at the locations they hit the buildings and it has been done. Of course, we do see that the ends of the wings and top of the tail did not penetrate the building.

I know there was an analysis done by someone named Foo where I believe the analysis indicated that if the perimeter columns had 1 inch wall thickness there would not be complete penetration.

What isn't discussed much is that the wings were completely shredded by the perimeter columns and had very little if any impact on the core columns.

 

[bardamu]

Why would you need a model, when there's incontrovertible evidence that this did indeed happen. (assuming your hypothetical, if there was no fuel in the wing, we still have evidence it broke through the columns)

I'm with 3bodyproblem. We have irrefutable evidence, including eye-witness, video, and physical evidence that the planes did exactly what they were observed doing that day. I could give a rat's ass about bardamu's silly rhetorical and semantic games.

One of the stated aims of the Hardfire show was to focus entirely on the science. Now you want to bring up such things as eyewitnesses. Is that an admission that science on its own can't describe how the planes sliced through the buildings?

It's been a while, so someone feel free to refresh me, but I thought the idea of the slug model was to show that the fuel alone had enough "energy" to break through the columns. You seem to want to concentrate that available energy in certain areas so that it can't be used in others. To what end exactly?

NIST indicate that the available energy was concentrated in certain areas.

I wish he'd just get to the point. Either he's trying to discredit Ryan, or he's leading up to a theory. My guess is the latter, because as I read over the thread he seems consumed over the idea that the planes couldn't have penetrated exterior as easily as they did. It seems to imply either the planes themselves were some how "beefed" up, or the building itself was compromised to such an extent as to allow the columns to be severed.

I'm just taking up the challenge that was issued on Hardfire:

R Mackey: "You need to show where we have made a mistake. You need to show where one of our assumptions is either wrong or grossly distorting the result..."

Ummm but I did present a video of a water jet actually cutting stuff. What did you present Bard? Oh that's right, NOTHING!

Doing nothing is better than deliberately wasting other people's time.

Give us a reasonable discussion, and we'll be happy to add to it.

Discuss the following:

For a model to predict the extent of damage in a collision, does that model have to account for all the damage or can it ignore any parts of the damage that are difficult to explain and inconvenient for the desired prediction?