Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[bill smith]

I see. Your wife can help you with your English but not with maths. Don't worry, I'll tell you the answer.

If you look at page 86 of NCSTAR 1-2B, you'll see that the fuel tank in the wing tapers from 166" near the fuselage to 46" near the tip, so the figure of 120" for the length of the slug of fuel is the difference between the length of each end.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

Now read the next couple of pages (for comprehension), and you'll find that the fuel tank in each wing was split approximately into two halves. According to NIST and the airline companies, only the inboard half contained fuel at the time of the alleged collision with the south tower.

In the schematic of observed damage to the wall on page 238, you can see that columns were cut by the outboard section of the left wing, where the fuel tank was empty. Not only that, many of the columns that would have been hit by the full tank would have already been destroyed by the engines. In other words, where fuel was needed to break the columns, there was none. And where fuel was available to break the columns, it was redundant.

This suggests that Mackey's calculations are a waste of time and the slug of fuel model is a con trick.

That looks like RM is fairly well blown out of the water. Well reasoned. So the light aluminium wingtips could not have cut through the multiple steel box columns. Just as I thought.

 

[beachnut]

...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

...
According to NIST and the airline companies, only the inboard half contained fuel at the time of the alleged collision with the south tower.
...

Please source the exact sentence where it says the fuel was only in one wing tank. The wing is stronger if the fuel is equally distributed in the wing and it would be unusual in my experience to run the fuel dry in a wing tank. Please explain why the fuel was not equally distributed in the wing tank. Source down to the exact statement you say only the inboard half contained fuel. You messed this up as bad as supporting the moronic delusion of nose-out fraud no plane idiotic junk.

Where do you get the moronic lies from? Who is your failed source? How pathetic. What does this have to do with morons who made up the nose-out no plane lie? Do you ever check the source for accuracy? NO

Tie this to the nose out scam. Please

 

[DGM]

So the light aluminium wingtips could not have cut through the multiple steel box columns. Just as I thought.

You got us!!!! It should have bounced off like a rubber ball.

 

[bill smith]

You got us!!!! It should have bounced off like a rubber ball.

No but the wingtips at least had to have been snapped off if it was a real plane. They were not. They seem to have sliced through steel box columns that were 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel. These ere braced at 12 foot intervals against the concrete floors. They were box-columns which means that the delicate wingtip had to cut longways through 14'' of steel. Forget it DGM.

http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0049_image039.png Wingtip Snaps

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No but the wingtips at least had to be snapped off if it was aeal plane. They were not. They seem to have sliced through steel box columns that were 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel. These ere braced at 12 foot intervals againt the concrete floors. They were box-columns which means that the delicate wingtip had to cut longways through 14'' of steel. Forget it DGM.

http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0049_image039.png Wingtip Snaps

14" steel? Bill, they were only 2" thick!

14" steel can be found on battleships & naval vessels.

Unless you're saying that your skull is 14 inches thick?

 

[DGM]

No but the wingtips at least had to have been snapped off if it was a real plane. They were not. They seem to have sliced through steel box columns that were 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' steel. These ere braced at 12 foot intervals against the concrete floors. They were box-columns which means that the delicate wingtip had to cut longways through 14'' of steel. Forget it DGM.

http://nomoregames.net/presentation...al_August_07.ppt_files/slide0049_image039.png Wingtip Snaps

Come on Bill. The towers were steel and glass, much harder then the thin aluminum plane. How do you explain it entering the building at all?

 

[bill smith]

Come on Bill. The towers were steel and glass, much harder then the thin aluminum plane. How do you explain it entering the building at all?

There are only two options as I see it. 1.The planes were only some kind of images or were not there at all.
2. The columns had been modified somehow to allow a real plane to enter seamlessly.

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5553/spellcuom2.gif

 

[HyJinX]

Jello buildings?

 

[DGM]

There are only two options as I see it. 1.The planes were only some kind of images or were not there at all.
2. The columns had been modified somehow to allow a real plane to enter seamlessly.

Maybe the whole top of the building was a hologram, ever think of that?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There are only two options as I see it. 1.The planes were only some kind of images or were not there at all.
2. The columns had been modified somehow to allow a real plane to enter seamlessly.

Ummmm do you see a flaw in your design Billy?

1: Pictures from 9/11 weren't "manipulated".

2: How the hell can you modify a building after it was constructed to "allow a plane to enter"?

Go read up about the B-25 Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building. Read how the ESB wasn't "modified" to allow that type of aircraft to enter a steel & concrete building.

Billy, do you have any brain cells left?

 

[DGM]

Ummmm do you see a flaw in your design Billy?

1: Pictures from 9/11 weren't "manipulated".

2: How the hell can you modify a building after it was constructed to "allow a plane to enter"?

Go read up about the B-25 Mitchell Bomber that hit the Empire State Building. Read how the ESB wasn't "modified" to allow that type of aircraft to enter a steel & concrete building.

Billy, do you have any brain cells left?

Come on Chewy we can't keep fooling Bill

Bill;

The planes were real, New York was faked. We did it 83 miles North-Northwest of Las Vegas. Here are the coordinates.
http://stable.toolserver.org/geohac...51&params=37_14_06_N_115_48_40_W_type:airport

(we cleaned it up)

 

[TruthersLie]

Do you believe a youtube video or NIST?

No no no.
bad truther. stay on topic.

Youtube seems to be the end all, be all of evidence for da twoof. I was just supplying you with simple easy to understand examples.

try again.

I am still eagerly awaiting your thesis as to why ryan mackey is wrong on his physics of 9/11... or to see if you have learned what momentum is, or gradually, or .... well that list gets longer every time you log in.

But try to stay on topic.

And do YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE? I mean you take the piss poor work of Ace Baker and other no brainers who use LOW QUALITY, badly edited video to try to say there were no planes...

so YOUTUBE or NIST? I'll take NIST... thank you. I just make it accessable to you since you use youtube. try again. wah wah wah

 

[bardamu]

Please source the exact sentence where it says the fuel was only in one wing tank. The wing is stronger if the fuel is equally distributed in the wing and it would be unusual in my experience to run the fuel dry in a wing tank. Please explain why the fuel was not equally distributed in the wing tank. Source down to the exact statement you say only the inboard half contained fuel. You messed this up as bad as supporting the moronic delusion of nose-out fraud no plane idiotic junk.

Rib 18 was a baffle rib and was about half way along the wing.

NCSTAR 1-2B (page 88)
Since the baffle ribs restrict fuel from flowing outboard, it is reasonable that all fuel that could flow inboard was actually inboard at the time of impact.

(More details from page 84 onwards)

Where do you get the moronic lies from? Who is your failed source? How pathetic. What does this have to do with morons who made up the nose-out no plane lie? Do you ever check the source for accuracy? NO

Tie this to the nose out scam. Please

How many no planes threads do you want?

 

[332nd]

It depends what it's colliding with.

A 767 crashing into a large steel framed building. What should happen?

 

[bardamu]

No no no.
bad truther. stay on topic.

Youtube seems to be the end all, be all of evidence for da twoof. I was just supplying you with simple easy to understand examples.

try again.

I am still eagerly awaiting your thesis as to why ryan mackey is wrong on his physics of 9/11... or to see if you have learned what momentum is, or gradually, or .... well that list gets longer every time you log in.

But try to stay on topic.

And do YOU REALLY WANT TO GO THERE? I mean you take the piss poor work of Ace Baker and other no brainers who use LOW QUALITY, badly edited video to try to say there were no planes...

so YOUTUBE or NIST? I'll take NIST... thank you. I just make it accessable to you since you use youtube. try again. wah wah wah

Here's where we're up to:

1. You posted links to Mackey's Hardfire presentation where he claims to prove that fuel alone could have broken the perimeter columns.

2. I offered some criticism of Mackey's slug of fuel model, using data from NIST as my source.

3. You posted a link to a youtube video claiming that columns weren't broken.

It's time for you to make your mind up whether you believe NIST, Mackey or youtube.

 

[bardamu]

A 767 crashing into a large steel framed building. What should happen?

Different parts of the plane will behave differently according to their material properties. The engines and landing gear might even break the steel columns.

 

[beachnut]

What does this tripe have to with the insane claim of no plane with the nose out fantasy?

The truth is for simplicity they assumed the fuel was inboard of the baffle. The fact is the baffle is there to retain fuel in the outboard area for other purposes. Therefore the outboard section could have substantial amount of fuel in it until it drains when the lower inboard area of the same tank is less full. But we are only talking about 0 to 2000 gallons of fuel, or a max of 12,000 pounds. What was the problem with fuel in the wing in the first place. The WTC was designed to stop a 200 mph impact of a plane the size of 175 and 11, not a plane going 470 to 590 mph. Too bad truthers are not all engineers, we would only have to put up with 0.0087 percent of them going nuts.

The fuel tank by volume at the 18th rib has about 4500 gallons inboard and 2000 gallons outboard, so it is 1/3 of the fuel tank by volume/size is outside the 18 rib in a tank from rib 3 to rib 31 on a 35 rib wing. Too bad it means nothing for the nose out fantasy. One main tank in each wing; what does this have to do with insane no plane?

How many people actually saw Flight 175 impact? How do you fake an image in an eyeball for hundreds of witnesses spread all over New York. Ace Baker is pure nuts with the dumbest of all ideas on 911 along with a few other fringe nut case conspiracy theorists. Can't get much dumber.

 

[bardamu]

What does this tripe have to with the insane claim of no plane with the nose out fantasy?

The truth is for simplicity they assumed the fuel was inboard of the baffle. The fact is the baffle is there to retain fuel in the outboard area for other purposes. Therefore the outboard section could have substantial amount of fuel in it until it drains when the lower inboard area of the same tank are less full. But we are only talking about 0 to 2000 gallons of fuel, or a max of 12,000 pounds. What was the problem with fuel in the wing in the first place. The WTC was designed to stop a 200 mph impact of a plane the size of 175 and 11, not a plane going 470 to 590 mph. Too bad truthers are not all engineers, we would only have to put up with 0.0087 percent of them going nuts.

The fuel tank by volume at the 18th rib has about 4500 gallons inboard and 2000 gallons outboard, so it is 1/3 of the fuel tank by volume/size is outside the 18 rib in a tank from rib 3 to rib 31 on a 35 rib wing. Too bad it means nothing for the nose out fantasy.

How many people actually saw Flight 175 impact? How do you fake an image in an eyeball for hundreds of witnesses spread all over New York. Ace Baker is pure nuts with the dumbest of all ideas on 911 along with a few other fringe nut case conspiracy theorists. Can't get much dumber.

The slug of fuel model is supposed to prove that the plane could have broken through the wall, which in turn is supposed to prove that the nose out may not have been a cgi. NIST say it's reasonable to suppose that all the fuel was in the inboard tank, whereas Mackey assumes there was fuel in both tanks. We have a discrepancy and it has nothing to do with eyewitnesses.

 

[DGM]

Is bardamu really trying to use R Mackeys fuel slug model to some how prove that the plane would not enter the building? Wasn't that model the fuel alone without the plane? Does he forget about what the fuel was being carried by? Is he saying the plane empty couldn't do it?

 

[bardamu]

Is bardamu really trying to use R Mackeys fuel slug model to some how prove that the plane would not enter the building? Wasn't that model the fuel alone without the plane? Does he forget about what the fuel was being carried by? Is he saying the plane empty couldn't do it?

R Mackey tried to use the slug fuel model to prove that the plane would enter the building, and he challenged the truth movement to prove him wrong. He was quite clear about that on Hardfire.

We conclude that momentum from the fuel alone is enough to destroy the steel columns

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". So there you go!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...YwgPQ6uDLAw&q=hardfire+physics+of+9/11&hl=en#