|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th July 2011, 06:01 AM | #1 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Question for Ryan Mackey about "fuel slugs".......
Just a quick question for you.
I am debating someone about your presentation that you did on the “fuel slugs” alone being enough to destroy steel columns. He is saying that your actual claim is that the “fuel slugs” alone would have created the SAME damage pattern (column damage) that is seen in photos of the towers after impact. He is claiming that since the center tank was empty and only the wing tanks had fuel in them, that this claim is incorrect (if in fact that is what you are saying). I, on the other hand, believe that you are just showing that the “fuel slugs” are enough to damage/break CERTAIN columns, but not in the same pattern as we see in the photos. You were just making a point that fuel is “weaker” than aluminum, yet is shown that the “slugs” CAN damage/break columns. Can you please clarify your meaning on this? Are you in fact stating that actual “fuel slugs” in the wing tanks alone would have caused the same damage/breaks as seen in the photos, or is my interpretation correct? I tried to use the email address contained in your presentation, but it came back undelivered. Thanks in advance. |
7th July 2011, 07:45 AM | #2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
Clearly the fuel alone will cause a different damage pattern than the fuel plus the plane since the planes shape and total mass are quite different. This is so obvious it would be assumed without being explicitly stated in any discussion (except perhaps one with a truther.....)
|
7th July 2011, 12:15 PM | #3 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Makes my head spin actually.
The actual claim is that Ryan ignored the fuel loads reported by NIST (that there was fuel just in the wings and NOT in the center tank). Totally ridiculous as I actually QUOTED Ryan saying exactly that. That a model was created using the fuel in the wings. Absolutely mind blowing! I just wanted to get the meaning straight from the horse's mouth and see if I actually understood Ryan correctly and maybe that I was missing something. |
7th July 2011, 12:22 PM | #4 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
I don't want to speak for Ryan, but: My interpretation of his presentation was that he was indeed just modeling the magnitude of the forces involved. And that he was merely saying that the mass of the fuel alone at the speeds involved would've created enough impulse to sever columns.
If I'm correct, then the truther you're chatting with is literally creating a strawman. He's not only misrepresenting the argument (surprise, surprise; those guys almost always do that), but he's also digressing from the main point i.e. that the model was about impulse, which would be mass and speed dependent, and that there was sufficient mass travelling at sufficient speed to do the damage noted. The specifics of how the damage occurred would be a different analysis. Again: That's my take on what I remember about it. Ryan of course can speak for himself. |
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
7th July 2011, 02:16 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I agree with sns and EMH: Mackey did not mean show how the entire hole across the tower's face was created. He quite specifically models the impact of mass with a speed on a single column. And manages to show that, even taking all the metal away and leaving just the liquid fuel, the mere momentum of that sufficed to sever a column. This to show that material properties such as hardness, stiffness, density etc. are of second order significance. Of course this only applies where there is fuel hitting column. Where there is no or little fuel, but steel, aluminium, luggage, rubber, or humans, these too will obviously do the very same trick.
Certainly, Mackey never meant to claim that it was the fuel only that punched a hole into the building. This is indeed so obvious that it goes without saying. It takes some very weird and incompetent thinking to even come up with that idea. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|