Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[TruthersLie]

If planes hit the towers on 9/11, the government wouldn't have to rely on con artists to fix the data and produce bogus papers and models. After 8 years, we should have seen at least one honest piece of academic work. Considering the standard so far, they'd have been better off just ignoring the subject.

You are soooooo right.

so when will you present any "honest piece of academic work" which supports your failed delusions from any peer reviewed engineering journal anywhere in the world?

I mean it has been 8 years (in that time I have been published 3x, in 3 different journals in 3 different fields) and you have NOTHING that isn't a vanity journal (or a bigger sham).

Lets see...
There are about 50 academically reviewed and accepted papers which support all of, or part of the common narrative. Most of them are models which don't EXACTLY match what was seen on 9/11 but all of them support the common narrative (or parts of it) while NONE of them state that NIST is wrong.

Please present a single peer reviewed engineering journal article from any where in the world, in any language to even start this discussion.

I eagerly await your thesis.

 

[Furcifer]

You are soooooo right.

so when will you present any "honest piece of academic work" which supports your failed delusions from any peer reviewed engineering journal anywhere in the world?

I mean it has been 8 years (in that time I have been published 3x, in 3 different journals in 3 different fields) and you have NOTHING that isn't a vanity journal (or a bigger sham).

Lets see...
There are about 50 academically reviewed and accepted papers which support all of, or part of the common narrative. Most of them are models which don't EXACTLY match what was seen on 9/11 but all of them support the common narrative (or parts of it) while NONE of them state that NIST is wrong.

Please present a single peer reviewed engineering journal article from any where in the world, in any language to even start this discussion.

I eagerly await your thesis.

That's too easy. The acedemic shutdown of the truth movement is almost a nonsequitor. There's no basis in rational thought. You're better off dowsing the truth. Sorry, FAIL you've been pwned! Logic has no merit here.

 

[Toke]

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.

No, it does not have to be in a container.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, it does not have to be in a container.

This is what water without a container can do:

 

[Toke]

Waves can also do nasty things to container ships.
So water trying to get into containers are more dangerous than water in containers.

 

[dafydd]

Waves can also do nasty things to container ships.
So water trying to get into containers are more dangerous than water in containers.

We're getting into metonym here,the container for the thing contained.

 

[bardamu]

There is no "if" about this. Only the truly delusional (like that Ace Baker fellow) could possibly believe otherwise, and Baker didn't even have the courage of his alleged convictions when he was invited to go to downtown Manhattan to discuss his "no plane" theories with people there. Don't you think it's odd that he said on the Hardfire show that he wanted to talk to people who saw the planes, but then when he was given the opportunity to do so, he adamantly refused?

Great, no skills in physics and models so post a lie. If no planes hit the towers there would be no jet fuel fireball. Use some logic and get back on topic before posting pure delusional poppycock.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg[/qimg]
There is only one thing that could make this event. You see a 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy impact and the resultant jet fuel fireball from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel.

No model is needed to prove what happen on 911. The models were only used to support the goals of NIST. NIST was not out to prove terrorists did 911. You waste time cherry picking things from NIST try for a broader understanding.

As you move further off topic you might consider taking a physics course so you could do better than post lies and failed ideas.

Is this guy a no planer? You'd have to be pretty gullible to fall for the lamest conspiracy ever. It's sad to think anyone is this weak minded they have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Welcome to imagination run wild.

Bardamu - Can you explain how a ball of meat is able to peirce aluminum, fiberglass and/or composites?

[qimg]http://www.damets70.org/picture_library/MSC/BirdStrike.bmp[/qimg]

Once you understand this, you will understand how aluminum can damage steel.

are you shocked? jedi mind tricks work on these people and there is only one kind of person they work on.

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.

 

[bardamu]

What do you mean it doesn't come close? The observed and that estimated by the SAP model are almost identical. Given the variables and the degree of error in the measurment I find it acceptable. Personally I find it amazing, but you don't so I'm willing to tone it down to acceptable.

What it does is show the model is behaving as we would expect. If they ran the model and came up with very little damage there's reason for concern. Same thing if it showed too much. It serves as a way to tune the model based on the visual evidence. It's essential to do this as there's no visual evidence of the damage to the core. That damage has to be extrapolated from the simulation. I thinks it's reasonable to assume NIST did a decent job recreating what happened to the core based on what they did with the exterior.

We seem to be talking about two different models. I'm interested in the simplified, BOE, slug of fuel model, as presented on Hardfire, which is the topic of the thread.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

Nope, pretty sure the first step is figuring out what delusion you have. I really don't have a good way to begin a discussion with a no planer. How would you talk evolution to me if I were a creationist? Would you include me in a serious discussion about fossil records? Can you see how this applies here or is this analogy already beyond your level of understanding? Please don't be offended but it's best to assume you're at the lower end of the spectrum and move from there. You'd be surprised how wacky no planers can get.

 

[GlennB]

We seem to be talking about two different models. I'm interested in the simplified, BOE, slug of fuel model, as presented on Hardfire, which is the topic of the thread.

Wrong. The topic of the thread is the 'physics of 9/11', not simply the 'slug of fuel' illustration, so being asked how a bird can smash through the aluminium skin of a plane is very pertinent as it illustrates that soft things can break harder things. It illustrates that impulse rather than sheer mass and/or hardness is a very real issue in understanding the damage we're discussing at WTC1+2.

May I repeat a previous question - are you of the opinion that hard things cannot be penetrated by softer things? If not, what is the cause of such damage?

 

[Furcifer]

We seem to be talking about two different models. I'm interested in the simplified, BOE, slug of fuel model, as presented on Hardfire, which is the topic of the thread.

Before or after which split I may or may not have caused?

My bad though if you weren't talking about the exterior and the base case. It been what like a year?

 

[tfk]

Bard,

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.

There is no paradox. Nobody has EVER said that.
Nobody but you, that is.

We know from NIST that there was no fuel outboard of rib 18,

Please provide your source (quote please) for this assertion.

so these 5 or 6 columns couldn't have been broken by the fuel.

Who says "they were broken by the fuel"?

That means the whole exercise is a total waste of time.

Pearls before swine, obviously.

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.

Mackey doesn't need to do anything.

If YOU are making the assertion that those column could NOT have been broken by the wing alone, then YOU need to do that analysis.

When YOU bring back to us YOUR analysis, be sure to have your error analysis complete & checked. It will NOT be accepted without one.

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.

Pssst, bard. Annoying little boys do not get to pass out assignment for the teachers.

I'm not claiming this proves there were no planes.

Now THERE's a relief.

I'm saying that this particular model serves no purpose whatsoever and it should be abandoned.

The model SUCCESSFULLY served its exact purpose. Which you have been informed of many times. (At least 3 times by me, this being the fourth.)

The purpose of Mackey's model was NOT to analyze the details of what happened in that collision.

Say it to yourself many, many, many times.

In order to analyze THE DETAILS of what happened in that collision, you do NOT perform an analysis like Mackey did. You perform an analysis like NIST did. FEA, millions of nodes, tens of thousands of dollars worth of computer programs, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of programmers time, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of supercomputer time.

The PURPOSE of Mackey's analysis was to show that the truther's claim that "the plane (in general, not the wingtips) should have bounced off of the side of the building" is false.

The analysis that Mackey did is a typical analysis that looks at the gross interactions when objects collide.

If YOU want to perform YOUR analysis of the wingtips, well, I'd get cracking on learning FEA programming if I were you.

The people here have confirmed that, by playing down its importance rather than defend it.

Your "confirmation" is all in your head. Precisely because you seem incapable of reading, understanding & processing information.

If it was truthers who were refusing to let go of an argument with so many holes in it...

The "holes" are only in your head & imagination.
__

I've explained this, in detail, to you about 4 times now. Why do you not respond? Why do you not address the points that I've made, but simply repeat the same rant.

Please read this post carefully, augmented (if you require) by my previous posts, and report back with a PRECISE answer to this one question:

"What do you think was the purpose of Mackey's analysis?"


Tom

 

[alienentity]

Bardamu wrote
'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?'

How many strawmen can you come up with in one paragraph? You are showing a failure (or refusal) to comprehend the basics of the arguments at hand, and the evidence presented. No wonder you're struggling to understand reality.

a) You've completely misrepresented the argument against Szamboti, which is not an honest thing to do, frankly. There is zero evidence that the antenna moved without the rest of the building. It is clear from videos of both towers that they both tilted immediately to varying degrees - this is not worth disputing if you purport to be intelligent and serious. You simply make a fool out of yourself.

b)Sketching on the back of an envelope? No further comment required. That's a delusional argument, with no basis in reality.

Let's now return to the post about the column damage, Bard. Evidently you have the report, but evidently you are not able to understand it. This is a problem - yours, not the reports'.

Let me quote once again. Let's see if you are able to absorb this information:

'Damage to the exterior wall was observed all the way out to the wing tips, but the exterior columns were not completely failed in the outer wing and vertical stabilizer impact regions.'
Chapter 9.4.1, p208

NIST is very clear about the extent of the damage. You contend that their model is incorrect, yet you don't seem to have realized that their model (the diagram b) shows substantially less damage than what actually occurred. This illustrates that the model is a bit conservative.

Let's be perfectly clear about these points:

1) high speed jets impacted both towers
2) the impacts destroyed a number of exterior columns and damaged others
3) the damage continued inside each building, and extended to core columns to varying degrees
4) the velocity of the planes were such that fuel and debris burst out the opposite side of impacts
(see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5430694&postcount=1404 to refresh your memory)
5) based on uncontroversial physics, the event has been modeled in great detail to study the nature of damage caused by the impacts. Based on mainstream, accepted engineering, the collapses of both towers were explained and accepted by the peers of those who conducted the investigation.

There is no point disputing these basic points; in fact denying them is not an exercise in discovering truth at all, but is designed to cover up the truth and support delusional thinking.

Bard, it is you who have been demonstrably incorrect on so many issues as to render your opinions irrelevant to the facts. It is also you who has the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. Choose you words carefully lest you deepen the intellectual hole you've dug for yourself.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We seem to be talking about two different models. I'm interested in the simplified, BOE, slug of fuel model, as presented on Hardfire, which is the topic of the thread.

Which is more likely:

1) Thousands of people saw a plane that wasn't there.

2) You are not as clever as you think you are.

Given the fact that mass hallucination on an epic scale is rare, and self-delusion is common, my money's on #2.

 

[bardamu]

Nope, pretty sure the first step is figuring out what delusion you have. I really don't have a good way to begin a discussion with a no planer. How would you talk evolution to me if I were a creationist? Would you include me in a serious discussion about fossil records? Can you see how this applies here or is this analogy already beyond your level of understanding? Please don't be offended but it's best to assume you're at the lower end of the spectrum and move from there. You'd be surprised how wacky no planers can get.

Two prominent debunkers deemed it worthwhile to devote a large part of a 3-part Hardfire show to debunking no planes. The debunkers presented a model which they claimed proved that the damage to the walls of the twin towers was credible because it could have been caused by the fuel alone. Although at the time they challenged the truth movement to find any flaws in their model, they (and you) are now refusing to discuss the matter with no planers. If you're waiting for planehuggers from the truth movement to find fault with your model, I think you can sleep easy in your beds.

Wrong. The topic of the thread is the 'physics of 9/11', not simply the 'slug of fuel' illustration, so being asked how a bird can smash through the aluminium skin of a plane is very pertinent as it illustrates that soft things can break harder things. It illustrates that impulse rather than sheer mass and/or hardness is a very real issue in understanding the damage we're discussing at WTC1+2.

May I repeat a previous question - are you of the opinion that hard things cannot be penetrated by softer things? If not, what is the cause of such damage?

A bird did not smash through the skin of a plane on 9/11. Aluminium wings containing empty fuel tanks sliced through rows of steel box column.

Which is more likely:

1) Thousands of people saw a plane that wasn't there.

2) You are not as clever as you think you are.

Given the fact that mass hallucination on an epic scale is rare, and self-delusion is common, my money's on #2.

Way off topic.

 

[bardamu]

There is no paradox. Nobody has EVER said that.
Nobody but you, that is.

The paradox is there unless you admit that either Mackey or NIST is wrong.

Please provide your source (quote please) for this assertion.

Once again, the source is NCSTAR 1-2B pages 84-88.

Who says "they were broken by the fuel"?

Once again, R Mackey: "We conclude that momentum from the fuel alone is enough to destroy the steel columns."

Mackey doesn't need to do anything.

Sorry, I should have added "if he's intellectually honest".

I've explained this, in detail, to you about 4 times now. Why do you not respond? Why do you not address the points that I've made, but simply repeat the same rant.

Please read this post carefully, augmented (if you require) by my previous posts, and report back with a PRECISE answer to this one question:

"What do you think was the purpose of Mackey's analysis?"

The purpose of Mackey's analysis was to demonstrate that the hypothesis that the damage to the twin towers was caused by passenger aircraft is reasonable.

The conclusion of the analysis was that the hypothesis is reasonable because the fuel alone could have broken the perimeter columns.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Way off topic.

bardamu,

We here at the JREF forums are well aware of this tactic used by you and other "truthers". It is an attempt to control discussion by focusing on a meaninglessly narrow topic of your choosing, something that you can actually defend as long as the subject doesn't stray into something that is actually relevant.

You should know that, even if you were to somehow show that some tiny part of the "official story" is not what it seems to be, it does not somehow become reasonable to believe in a huge conspiracy that went to so much trouble to fake a plane crash, that it would have been child's play in comparison to actually procure and crash a plane.

In a like manner, just because your milk and cookies go missing on Christmas Eve, it is not reasonable to conclude that Santa Claus therefore must exist.

Just an FYI.

 

[bardamu]

a) You've completely misrepresented the argument against Szamboti, which is not an honest thing to do, frankly. There is zero evidence that the antenna moved without the rest of the building. It is clear from videos of both towers that they both tilted immediately to varying degrees - this is not worth disputing if you purport to be intelligent and serious. You simply make a fool out of yourself.

I'm not saying the antenna moved without the rest of the upper block. I used the antenna to describe the whole upper block because it's what everybody's looking at to try to work out if there was a tilt before or after the thing dropped.

b)Sketching on the back of an envelope? No further comment required. That's a delusional argument, with no basis in reality.

The basis in reality is that the author of the model described it as such on Hardfire.

NIST is very clear about the extent of the damage. You contend that their model is incorrect, yet you don't seem to have realized that their model (the diagram b) shows substantially less damage than what actually occurred. This illustrates that the model is a bit conservative.

Wrong model.

Bard, it is you who have been demonstrably incorrect on so many issues as to render your opinions irrelevant to the facts. It is also you who has the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. Choose you words carefully lest you deepen the intellectual hole you've dug for yourself.

I had the burden of proof to show that the slug of fuel model was flawed and that's exactly what I've done. Now the burden of proof is back on you to show that the columns could have been broken by the wings alone.

 

[funk de fino]

The sooner this revision is gone the better. No planers are the lowest of the low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtSa-TZ6x8&feature=related

 

[GlennB]

A bird did not smash through the skin of a plane on 9/11. Aluminium wings containing empty fuel tanks sliced through rows of steel box column..

I'm sure you're right about the bird. It was an illustration of a critical point.

Now tell me why a portion of wing with empty fuel tanks could not break the outer steel columns of these buildings, without referring to Hardfire or 'fuel slugs'.

The
Physics
of
9/11

is the subject here.

Fire away.