It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

The Physics of 911- NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey / video

page: 5
5
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:06 PM
More that Mackey got wrong...

Well, I made it about 5 minutes into Mackey's Episode 3 before I found the "show stopper(s)" with Mackey "moving fast" through his PowerPoint slides

[quote=Ryan Mackey, Hardfire Part 3, 04:50, Slide 2-5]Suppose we simplify as follows:
- Assume each floor is mass m, height h
- Assume strength of each floor is equal to F epsilon h

• - Yield strength times maximum displacement
• - Has units of energy = force x distance

It would appear to me that R. Mackey doesn't know the difference between [the various engineering definitions of] strength and work/energy, or which units should be used there. Here are some defintions from [color="#0000FF"]McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Engineering, 2nd edition:

[color="#0000FF"]strength [MECH] The stress at which material ruptures or fails. [ streŋkth ]

stress [MECH] The force acting across a unit area in a solid material resisting the separation, compacting, or sliding that tends to be induced by external forces. [ stres ]

ultimate strength [MECH] The tensile stress, per unit of the original surface area, at which a body will fracture, or continue to deform under a decreasing load. [ əltəmət streŋkth ]

yield strength [MECH] The stress at which a material exhibits a specified deviation from proportionality of stress and strain. [ ye¯ ld streŋkth ]

breaking strength [MECH] The ability of a material to resist breaking or rupture from a tension force. [ bra¯ kiŋ streŋkth ]

Mackey appears to be equating force with stress (which is invalid BTW), and IMHO Mackey should have been talking about the breaking strength of the WTC components. Yield strength involves deformation, not the massive destruction and broken structure observed at WTC 1, 2, and 7 (or WFC 3 for that matter). [whistle]

[color="#0000FF"]deformation [MECH] Any alteration of shape or dimensions of a body caused by stresses, thermal expansion or contraction, chemical or metallurgical transformations, or shrinkage and expansions due to moisture change. [ defərma¯ shən ]

Stress actually would have been expressed in units of [lbf/in[sup]2[/sup]], [psi], or [ksi] when the WTC was designed (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2B for numerous examples). In SI units, I would expect [N/m[sup]2[/sup]] or [Pa]. Here is some more helpful information for R. Mackey:

[color="#0000FF"]

pound per square inch [MECH] A unit of pressure equal to the pressure resulting from a force of 1 pound applied uniformly over an area of 1 square inch. Abbreviated psi. [ pau˙nd pər ¦skwer inch ]

pound [MECH] 1. A unit of mass in the English absolute system of units, equal to 0.45359237 kilogram. Abbreviated lb. Also known as avoirdupois pound; pound mass.
2. A unit of force in the English gravitational system of units, equal to the gravitational force experienced by a pound mass when the acceleration of gravity has its standard value of 9.80665 meters per second per second (approximately 32.1740 ft/s2) equal to 4.4482216152605 newtons. Abbreviated lb. Also spelled Pound (Lb). Also known as pound force (lbf).

Mackey would appear to be confusing stress and/or strain with work/energy (which could have units of [lbf-in] or [J]). Frankly, I have difficulty in watching the rest after such blatant gaffes.

Work
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Now a "yield strength times maximum displacement" would properly have units of [lbf/in[sup]2[/sup]]*[in], or [lbf/in], but I'm not certain what engineering context that Mackey was attempting to place such a quantity in. Perhaps Mackey was talking about surface tension of liquids for some unknown reason- it is expressed in those type of units. Here are some conversion calculators and the Wiki page on surface tension:

h ttp://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/units-...eter-%5BN/m%5D/

www.unitconversion.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

I can certainly see why R. Mackey was waving his hands so "quickly" though...

flickcabin.com...

He appears to have revised his PowerPoint from that video screencapture, but he still incorrectly lists "strength" in units of energy or work on the revised Slide 31. It is a little sad really- Mackey appears to be down to 2 Illusionist groupies and only 1 at ATS. Perhaps some of them really have learned to "think critically" over the past 7+ years, and the "Debunkomackey Mark VII" Beta version may need an overhaul. [whistle]

Another HINT for Mr. Mackey: "strength" isn't expressed in BTU's, calories, or kWh either.

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps Mackey will come out with a "version 3.0" of his 300+ page "Debunking..." tome now.

Source

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:02 PM
RH - can we go back to the original "fatal" flaws? Can you tell me what OSHA had to do with the design and construction of WTC 1 & 2? (they were not around until after the towers started being built. ) Nixon created OSHA in 1970.

Thanks.

-CF

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:19 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
RH - can we go back to the original "fatal" flaws? Can you tell me what OSHA had to do with the design and construction of WTC 1 & 2? (they were not around until after the towers started being built. ) Nixon created OSHA in 1970.

Thanks.

-CF

OSHA has nothing to do with construction and no one ever said they did Mr Strawman.

OSHA has everything to do with Occupational Safety And Health.

In other words, you are using the same argument Beachnut likes to use regarding AA77 FDR. eg.. since the aircraft was built prior to effective date of ED-55 (FDR's cannot be missing more than 0.5 seconds), that automatically means any aircraft, structure, vehicle.. et al.. cannot be regulated/monitored/adhered to... by agencies/regulations.. etc... created after the fact. Typical logical fallacy by those who make excuse for the govt story.

Although "paint thinner"/cleaner.. etc is allowed in skyscrapers, you cannot fill floors with hundreds of 55 gallon drums of it. Just like HAZMAT regs for aircraft.... etc.

Bottom line?

Mackey has gotten ALOT wrong. This whole thread and the threads linked proves it. Im sure many are not surprised you would rather focus on OSHA in terms of construction. Albeit, very wrong there as well...

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by RockHound757

OSHA has nothing to do with construction and no one ever said they did Mr Strawman.

I presented a legitimate question civilly and you have to resort to name calling. Not sure why I was surprised.

Typical logical fallacy by those who make excuse for the govt story

No, I was trying to clear up what you (or Rob) meant by it.

Although "paint thinner"/cleaner.. etc is allowed in skyscrapers, you cannot fill floors with hundreds of 55 gallon drums of it.

You clearly stated in your post that "Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers." I responded to you that yes they are. Albeit not 55 gallon drums placed all over the offices. Flammables were more than likely found on all floors in the WTC.

Bottom line?

Mackey has gotten ALOT[sic] wrong. This whole thread and the threads linked proves it. Im sure many are not surprised you would rather focus on OSHA in terms of construction. Albeit, very wrong there as well...

No RH, you were discussing an OSHA Class A Skyscraper. I have never heard of that term used together. Unless you forgot a comma? It's tough to tell.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
I presented a legitimate question civilly and you have to resort to name calling. Not sure why I was surprised.

Its not name calling if its fact. Its fact you presented a Strawman. No one ever said OSHA had to do with construction regs.

The difference beween you and i, is i source my claims, unlike the libel you constantly attribute to Rob Balsamo sans source.. daily.

No, I was trying to clear up what you (or Rob) meant by it.

Hopefully "we" cleared it up for you.

You clearly stated in your post that "Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers." I responded to you that yes they are. Albeit not 55 gallon drums placed all over the offices. Flammables were more than likely found on all floors in the WTC.

Enough to soften steel once ignited and cause occupational hazards in the workplace? Ask OSHA if you're unsure. Its linked above.

No RH, you were discussing an OSHA Class A Skyscraper. I have never heard of that term used together. Unless you forgot a comma? It's tough to tell.

Ask Willie what Class A Skyscraper means. He references it in many of his videos.

If you dont trust Willie (which im sure you dont), ask Trump or Silverstein. Let us know how you make out.

Edit: typo

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by CameronFox
I presented a legitimate question civilly and you have to resort to name calling.

Its fact you presented a Strawman.

You didn't say he presented a strawman, you called him a name "Mr. Strawman". There's a difference there.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:37 PM
Just checked OSHA's website. Nowhere does OSHA have anything to do with buildings unless there are things involved such as asbestos.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by CameronFox
I presented a legitimate question civilly and you have to resort to name calling.

Its fact you presented a Strawman.

You didn't say he presented a strawman, you called him a name "Mr. Strawman". There's a difference there.

Fitting name. Dont you think? Considering most of what is posted by CF are in fact Strawman arguments.

Perhaps you disagree. Im sure many wont be surprised.

You a member of JREF perhaps?

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:42 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just checked OSHA's website. Nowhere does OSHA have anything to do with buildings unless there are things involved such as asbestos.

Wow, you read through their entire site in less than an hour and came to such a conlcusion?

you're wrong once again BoneZ. The title of the site itself will prove you wrong.

Considering you feel im the Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, i wonder which side you're on.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:01 PM

Originally posted by RockHound757
Fitting name. Dont you think?

Not really as it's against forum rules to call others names. I got plenty of those from you in my PM box.

Originally posted by RockHound757
You a member of JREF perhaps?

Well since I'm a part of the TRUTH movement, if a JREF'er says something that is truthful, why would you deny it unless you were UNtruthful?

Originally posted by RockHound757
Wow, you read through their entire site in less than an hour and came to such a conlcusion?

It's called the "search" function. You should try it sometime.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:39 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:51 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Just checked OSHA's website. Nowhere does OSHA have anything to do with buildings unless there are things involved such as asbestos.

(a) This Act shall apply with respect to employment performed in a workplace in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Wake Island, Outer Continental Shelf Lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Johnston Island, and the Canal Zone. The Secretary of the Interior shall, by regulation, provide for judicial enforcement of this Act by the courts established for areas in which there are no United States district courts having jurisdiction.

According to BoneZ, a "workplace" doesnt include buildings unless coated in asbestos. Which means, any employee can bring as much paint thinner, flammable cleaners, even TNT into any skyscraper never being regulated by any govt agency.

Wake up BoneZ and click some HAZMAT/CFR 29 links.

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:54 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
if a JREF'er says something that is truthful, why would you deny it unless you were UNtruthful?

I see. So you feel this statement/question from CF is truthful/valid based on the OP exposing Mackey... and not a strawman...

Can you tell me what OSHA had to do with the design and construction of WTC 1 & 2?

Thanks for letting us know where you stand.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by RockHound757]

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by RockHound757
Its not name calling if its fact. Its fact you presented a Strawman. No one ever said OSHA had to do with construction regs.

You used the term "OSHA Class A Skyscraper." I know what a class A skyscraper is. As far as I know, and those I have spoken with that have ever heard this term you have mentioned. This is why I assumed you were associating OSHA with the building and or design. I then asked you to clear it up by asking a question. You asked me then to ask Willie, Trump, or Silverstien what a Class A building was. You have not told me where you got the term I quoted you as saying above.

The difference beween[sic] you and i, is i source my claims, unlike the libel you constantly attribute to Rob Balsamo sans source.. daily.

If I am presenting new information, I source it. I may not be the most popular member here, but I think most of the folks here will tell you that I source my materials.

If Mr. Balsamo feels that I "libel" him, have him file charges against me.

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:21 PM

On the hardfire physics with Ryan Mackey, at 16:30 minutes in 2nd program, he mentions the ongoing discussions of the buildings design and says "...even if they had been built to code"

To clarify if this means there is evidence that the structure had not met code, or whether it mattered either way is a little grey.

The model in this excercise seems plausible, but if "in the ball park", wouldn't this contradict the designers claim that the tower would sustain an impact of a 747 class jetliner?

Also saying the columns would break does not neccesarily mean they would shear. Break seems more like failure at connecting points rather than the column being snapped like a twig in haif.

I will look for more later, but just watched all 4 hours of the two opposing videos and need to break from it awhile.

Thoughts?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by imd12c4funn]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:20 AM
Here is some physics that is a must for more anomalies to analyze

Let's see a model that can duplicate this repeatedly

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:32 AM

When the presentation was talking about other studies and discussions among engineers if the WTC was up to code. I don’t think these discussions contradict the towers were strong enough to take a 707 impact at 180 mph as designed for. Many studies agree the towers were strong enough to stop the impact of a 707 as designed.

The killer on 911 was the speed of impact. Energy of impact is proportional to the speed squared. Energy of the high-speed impacts on 911 was 7 to 11 times greater than the original design impact.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by iSunTzu]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:26 AM

Originally posted by iSunTzu
The killer on 911 was the speed of impact. Energy of impact is proportional to the speed squared. Energy of the high-speed impacts on 911 was 7 to 11 times greater than the original design impact.

That is, if you ignore a white paper supposedly by Skilling's firm where they said 600 mph.

Here is a Seattle Times write-up on what John Skilling (the real lead structural engineer...not Leslie Robertson) said after the 1993 bombing.

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

NIST found the actual white paper, but it's interesting what I found on wikipedia:

NIST found a three page white paper that mentioned another aircraft impact analysis, involving impact of a jet at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study was lost when Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.[9] In 1993, John Skilling recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "The building structure would still be there."[10] However, he may have put little thought to how the structure would behave in an intense fire that would result from an aircraft impact, and simply assumed that the World Trade Center's lightweight trusses and columns would perform as well as the heavy masonry and steel structure in the Empire State Building.[11] In its investigation, NIST also found reason to believe that they lacked the ability to properly model the effect of such impacts on the structures, especially the effects of the fires.[12][note 1]

en.wikipedia.org...

What's that wikipedia? Even after I just quoted Skilling in the Seattle Times circa 1993 as saying the most important problem was the fire? And people wonder how disinformation is spread.

The white paper can be found at:

NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Appendix A

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:55 AM
What's this?! Mackey pretending to know what he's talking about?

Has he submitted his reply to Jones about the thermate discovered in the
WTC dust?

Since when did Mackey acquire a degree in architecture? He's all over
the 'Net acting as though he built the towers and offering calculations that
omit core columns! Just look at that pathetic 'model' in his presentation.

Mackey I can't wait to debate you on Hardfire. Ron already promised.

Get your act together quick because you're going to have your hands
full answering questions that you continue to dodge on these forums.

Thanks for all the links to alternate discussions exposing Mackey's errors.
I'll be sure to point out these and my own observations on Hardfire.

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:48 PM
Since this thread is about the physics of 9/11, I re-offer this challenge to support the official conspiracy theory physics of 9/11. The Heiwa Challenge as presented by a structural damage analysis expert. If the OCT and physics are up to snuff surrounding 9/11, then this challenge will be met quite easily by Ryan Mackey or Cameron Fox (CHF-from JREF?) or any supporter of the OCT. Again if the physics of 9/11 are based in scientific fact and not psedo-politico-faith based science, then these conditions can be easily met. When the conditions are met, you will have created something NIST, FEMA, or JREF members have not created: a model supporting the official phsyics of 9/11 with regards to the WTC: North Tower.
Conditions:
1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Swing Dangler]

top topics

5