If I debunked the witness testimony, you'd say there's still the "fuel slug" proof. Let's take them one at a time. If it's not such a fatal issue, tell me why R Mackey would go to all the trouble of constructing a mathematical model to prove that the fuel alone could destroy the columns, then invite the truth movement to debunk his work.
Oy...
Ryan went to the trouble of constructing a model in order to get you all to
think, not merely quotemine reports or blindly parrot the word of conspiracy peddlers. And it was partially successful in doing this, because it got you to post this statement in the
Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 thread:
The fact that the momentum is calculated based on the average width of a wing that tapers is already a problem, since for any fuel outboard of half way, the momentum will be less than estimated. If the height of the fuel tank is also based on an average of the whole wing, the same problem is made worse. If the volume of fuel is based on a full tank, the problem is even worse, because the tank was far from full. Finally, if there was no fuel at all in the outboard tank, then no columns could have been broken by fuel alone outboard of rib 18, which is about half way along the wing.
Good! You're finally thinking! Now, think all the way to the
conclusion: To what
degree does the information you provided refine the model? Is the momentum changed in a way that changes the conclusion i.e. results in such lessened momentum that the columns survive? You said "
the momentum will be less than estimated". Fine.
How much less?
When you plug your "refinements" into the model, how much does it change the momentum? I don't have an immediate answer for that since I'm not sitting down and recreating the impulse calculations for the dimensions you provide, but consider this: Those slides you refer to set parameters for what speed and pressures it takes for columns to fail. You only need to be moving the mass of fuel at around 185 MPH to fail the external columns, and above 430 MPH to fail core ones. Flight 11 was estimated to be moving around 443 MPH (plus or minus 30; source - NCSTAR 1-2B, chapter 11), and UA175 was estimated to be around 542 +/- 24 MPH. You unquestionably have enough speed in the case of UA175, and very likely have enough in AA11's case to fail core columns, and you have an overabundance of speed available to fail perimeter ones. Now, look at the pressure/impulse curves in NCSTAR 1-2, fig. 10-4. Look where complete failure can occur, and look where even moderate damage occurs. If I'm reading that correctly (people, correct me if I'm wrong), an impulse of around 5.5 psi/s is sufficient for this. 10 psi/s is unquestionably sufficient. In Ryan's simplification, you're getting 90 to 100 psi/s. Are the differences you're setting out sufficient to reduce that impulse to the point where failure doesn't occur?
Tell me what the impulse is given your modified dimensions of the slug. You obviously are arguing that the slug cannot have damaged the columns in Ryan's simplification (which closely tracks NISTs, and BTW, you need to read that part of NCSTAR 1-2 to see the full argument), but you need to show this, not just claim it. Does the difference you set out change the impulse enough to lower the model's 90-some to 100-some psi/s to below the 5.5 psi/s threshold?
Ryan, Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit, anyone else: If you see a problem with the way I laid the above out, please feel free to correct it. I'm doing this seat-of-my-pants.
