Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

The no-planers aren't going to understand the relationship between models and reality (because that would require some familiarity with reality), so they aren't going to find fault either.

No-planers and planehuggers from the truth movement have never been significant impediments to sleep, however. You have failed to address the problem of snoring, for example, so your conclusion does not follow.

The relationship between models and reality is relevant to physics and to the topic of this thread.

 

[bardamu]

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.

If you need to involve the wings and the empty fuel tanks, you're implicitly accepting that the fuel alone couldn't have broken all the columns. Can you confirm that's your conclusion before we go any further?

 

[bardamu]

The no-planers aren't going to understand the relationship between models and reality (because that would require some familiarity with reality), so they aren't going to find fault either.

No-planers and planehuggers from the truth movement have never been significant impediments to sleep, however. You have failed to address the problem of snoring, for example, so your conclusion does not follow.

The relationship between models and reality is relevant to physics and to the topic of this thread.

Now's your chance to explain the relationship between the slug of fuel model and reality. I'm assuming you're familiar with both.

 

[beachnut]

If you want to know what really happened, you need to watch the videos and think about why part of the upper block appears to disintegrate before the 'collapse front' begins to move down.

Do you have the same delusion now? Explain this with equations explain the disintegration. Or was your observation opinion based tripe?

Now is you chance to explain what caused the disintegration in a reality based world. I assume you are familiar with your work where you conclude the mass disintegrated. You mean disintegrate like gone, or are you exaggerating what is perceived from a low resolution video?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Now's your chance to explain the relationship between the slug of fuel model and reality. I'm assuming you're familiar with both.

Let me get this straight. Someone makes an observation that the normal amount of fuel (a liquid) in the wing has enough moment to destroy the columns. You decide to attack this observation based on a different observation that there was no fuel in the wing.

Am I correct?

 

[tfk]

Bard,

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

NIST is not wrong.
Mackey is not wrong.
Not coincidentally, NIST & Mackey agree with each other.

One person in this never-ending farce has repeated tripping over a paradox of his own imagining. That person would be you.

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

Correct. And this statement is true.

And NOWHERE in this statement, or in any NIST analysis, will you find the word, "... as you can see, this calculation proves that the wing alone, without the fuel, will not penetrate the walls."

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

Hmmmm... "Intellectually honest"...

Funny that you should toss about that particular phrase.

A couple of other phrases leap to mind:
"... intellectually competent ..."
"... reading comprehension ..."
"... determinedly clueless ..."

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.

NO!!

Mackey's analysis was NOT directed at the claims of NIST. Or at the claims of the debunkers.

It was directed at the claim of the truthers.

This is not simply that contrapositive.

Mackey's analysis FALSIFIES the claim that "it is unreasonable for the plane to have passed thru the walls."

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

The conclusion of Mackey's BOTE calculation was that the truther's claim is false.

The conclusion of NIST's detailed FEA study is that the damage seen in the WTC towers is theoretically completely consistent with what was seen on 9/11. PLUS the analysis gives them an very good idea of the approximate damage that happened inside the building.

These are crucial pieces of information that have no alternative way of being determined.

Mackey & NIST's claims do not conflict in the slightest.

If you wish to continue the farcical imitation of a discussion, be my guest. But I would like to know when you plan on presenting us with YOUR analysis.


Tom

 

[tfk]

If you need to involve the wings and the empty fuel tanks, you're implicitly accepting that the fuel alone couldn't have broken all the columns. Can you confirm that's your conclusion before we go any further?

In my young&stupid days, my friend Jack & I used to get into mucho trouble.

Let's say that we'd talked ourselves into breaking a large window at our school. After lots of strutting & working up of courage, we each found something to throw thru it. Jack picks up a brick, and I find a heavy metal horseshoe. On the count of "3", we both hurl our projectiles, and are rewarded with the sound of smashing glass. We run off.

The next day, we are called down to the headmaster's office, and presented with security camera shots of ourselves in full wind-up.

The jig is up...

But NOT to The Bard.

Because, he explains,

"If you need to involve the brick, you're implicitly accepting that the horsehoe couldn't have broken the window."

"Furthermore, if you need to involve the horseshoe, you're implicitly accepting that the brick alone couldn't have broken the window."

"Therefore you are obliged to let both these boys go."

After the headmaster stops laughing, he whacks you about the head & shoulders repeatedly for insulting his intelligence. And then sends you back to class, with a promise to NEVER sign a recommendation for you to go to law school.

Then he beats Jack & I within an inch of our lives. Then calls our parents, who proceed to beat us again within ANOTHER inch of our lives. After working all summer, at $1.50/hour to pay off the window, we have truly learned the error of our ways & our lesson.

"Disable the security camera FIRST!"


Tom

Some people's kids...

 

[R.Mackey]

Just to remind everyone why I did this derivation in the first place, it was not to take on the no-planers. As I stated a couple of pages back, no-planers have already demonstrated through their affiliation that they are not reasonable, and the continued bickering here proves it beyond any doubt.

The real reason was stated in this thread here. Practically everyone accepts that aircraft caused that damage, but few actually know how to put numbers on the problem. It's also good practice to start with a model where we already know what the answer should be.

Ignore the no-planers. What chance do you have to change their minds, when the entire world has opposed them for years and failed to do so? Their delusion calls for a medical solution, not a rhetorical one.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Now's your chance to explain the relationship between the slug of fuel model and reality. I'm assuming you're familiar with both.

The slug of fuel model was a deliberate simplification of reality, formulated for an audience that lacked the time and knowledge to absorb a more detailed and realistic model. I don't know how well the model served its intended audience, but it has failed to reach you because:

• Despite its simplifications, the slug of fuel model still assumes too much knowledge of physics for you to understand it.
• Lacking knowledge of physics or understanding of the relationship between models and reality, you focus on the model's simplifications as though they were defects in the model.

In short, your inability to understand the model, despite the best efforts of many people in this thread, has far more to do with you than with the model. Hence any serious discussion of this matter must focus on you rather than the model.

 

[DavidJames]

bardamu: Serious question. Why are you debating a guy on an Internet forum. Why not go after the NIST?

 

[bardamu]

The slug of fuel model was a deliberate simplification of reality, formulated for an audience that lacked the time and knowledge to absorb a more detailed and realistic model. I don't know how well the model served its intended audience, but it has failed to reach you because:

• Despite its simplifications, the slug of fuel model still assumes too much knowledge of physics for you to understand it.
• Lacking knowledge of physics or understanding of the relationship between models and reality, you focus on the model's simplifications as though they were defects in the model.

In short, your inability to understand the model, despite the best efforts of many people in this thread, has far more to do with you than with the model. Hence any serious discussion of this matter must focus on you rather than the model.

In other words, the slug of fuel model has no relationship with reality.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Ignore the no-planers. What chance do you have to change their minds, when the entire world has opposed them for years and failed to do so? Their delusion calls for a medical solution, not a rhetorical one.

Or, failing that, a surgical one.

 

[twinstead]

In other words, the slug of fuel model has no relationship with reality.

It might be me, but I think this statement just proved his point. So, what we have left here is a total argument from personal incredulity which also appears to have no relationship with reality. There is NO reason for any rational person NOT to totally discount what you are claiming. Not a good spokesman for the truth movement. In fact, I suspect you are a NWO plant.

I know who you are! You're Harold from HR 3 cubes over from me here in NWO towers. Harry, if that's you just peek your head over your partition. You deserve a high five, bro!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Not a good spokesman for the truth movement. In fact, I suspect you are a NWO plant.

Agreed! Bardamu, you're lucky the Truth Movement is completely ineffectual as an organization, or they'd have taken out a contract on you for making them look like raving loonies.

 

[Toke]

Agreed! Bardamu, you're lucky the Truth Movement is completely ineffectual as an organization, or they'd have taken out a contract on you for making them look like raving loonies.

There is something wrong with your reasoning here.

An effective truth movement would quickly reduce itself to inefficiency through the number of contracts needed to remove every member appearing to be a raving loony.

Then we would be back at the lack of organised movement we have now.

 

[bardamu]

Let me get this straight. Someone makes an observation that the normal amount of fuel (a liquid) in the wing has enough moment to destroy the columns. You decide to attack this observation based on a different observation that there was no fuel in the wing.

Am I correct?

I'm attacking the conclusion drawn from the observation.

Just to remind everyone why I did this derivation in the first place, it was not to take on the no-planers. As I stated a couple of pages back, no-planers have already demonstrated through their affiliation that they are not reasonable, and the continued bickering here proves it beyond any doubt.

This is hard to reconcile with your previous statement:

So what we conclude at the end of this exercise is, the damage we see is completely credible, and that is good enough to dismiss the truth movement when they say this damage doesn't make sense. You turn around and say, we've gone through this exercise and to us it makes sense. So if you want to demonstrate that your claim is correct, the burden of proof is now upon you. You need to improve your reasoning. You need to show where we've made a mistake. You need to show where one of our assumptions is either wrong or grossly distorting the result, and until you do that, this is the right way to look at the problem.

The only people in the truth movement who would say the damage doesn't make sense are the no-planers.

The real reason was stated in this thread here. Practically everyone accepts that aircraft caused that damage, but few actually know how to put numbers on the problem. It's also good practice to start with a model where we already know what the answer should be.

If you know what the answer should be, you can make sure you build a model that gives you that answer.

Ignore the no-planers. What chance do you have to change their minds, when the entire world has opposed them for years and failed to do so? Their delusion calls for a medical solution, not a rhetorical one.

Don't bother increasing the fluoride. My water is filtered.

 

[bardamu]

In my young&stupid days, my friend Jack & I used to get into mucho trouble.

Let's say that we'd talked ourselves into breaking a large window at our school. After lots of strutting & working up of courage, we each found something to throw thru it. Jack picks up a brick, and I find a heavy metal horseshoe. On the count of "3", we both hurl our projectiles, and are rewarded with the sound of smashing glass. We run off.

The next day, we are called down to the headmaster's office, and presented with security camera shots of ourselves in full wind-up.

The jig is up...

But NOT to The Bard.

Because, he explains,

"If you need to involve the brick, you're implicitly accepting that the horsehoe couldn't have broken the window."

"Furthermore, if you need to involve the horseshoe, you're implicitly accepting that the brick alone couldn't have broken the window."

"Therefore you are obliged to let both these boys go."

After the headmaster stops laughing, he whacks you about the head & shoulders repeatedly for insulting his intelligence. And then sends you back to class, with a promise to NEVER sign a recommendation for you to go to law school.

Then he beats Jack & I within an inch of our lives. Then calls our parents, who proceed to beat us again within ANOTHER inch of our lives. After working all summer, at $1.50/hour to pay off the window, we have truly learned the error of our ways & our lesson.

"Disable the security camera FIRST!"

This would be a passable analogy if every column could have been broken by the wing and/or the fuel. Unfortunately, the 9/11 impacts are not as simple as that.

Let's suppose 10 windows were broken and the camera shows that Jack threw 10 bricks but Tom only threw 2 horseshoes. If the headmaster wants to prove that the pair of them broke the 10 windows, he'd want to focus on the 10 bricks, not the two horseshoes. Logically, he can't accuse Tom of breaking all 10 windows, but he can say that Jack broke at least eight and that either Jack or Tom broke the other 2 windows.

Basing a model on the momentum of the fuel alone is like accusing Tom of breaking all the windows. It's inevitable that the bricks or the wings will have to be brought into the model eventually, so why didn't Mackey base his model on the momentum of the wings in the first place. The wings are the equivalent of Jack's 10 bricks.

Correct. And this statement is true.

And NOWHERE in this statement, or in any NIST analysis, will you find the word, "... as you can see, this calculation proves that the wing alone, without the fuel, will not penetrate the walls."

He goes on to say: "So what we conclude at the end of this exercise is, the damage we see is completely credible..."

Since there was no mention of the wing itself in the exercise, maybe he should have said: "We know that the wing would have penetrated the walls anyway, so just forget about the exercise because it was a total waste of time".

Mackey's analysis was NOT directed at the claims of NIST. Or at the claims of the debunkers.

It was directed at the claim of the truthers.

This is not simply that contrapositive.

Mackey's analysis FALSIFIES the claim that "it is unreasonable for the plane to have passed thru the walls."

This is debatable. It depends whether you believe what Mackey said yesterday or the day before.

 

[twinstead]

come on bard. Anybody who isn't an idiot knows what you are doing. You can't do (or even understand) the math that is required to support your case, so you're playing little rhetorical games.

Jesus. It's almost like you think we've never seen this before. You really belong on another forum if you think you're actually 'debating' anybody or anything.

 

[BadBoy]

Bard said:

Since there was no mention of the wing itself in the exercise, maybe he should have said: "We know that the wing would have penetrated the walls anyway, so just forget about the exercise because it was a total waste of time".

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

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.

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

 

[Justin39640]

I'm attacking the conclusion drawn from the observation.

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.