It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:53 PM
Challenge Continued:
7. Mass of part C should be

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:41 AM
A scaled model would have to have the proper distribution of mass and strength.

The NIST says the south tower moved 12 inches on the 70th floor because of the impact. A lot of the energy went into moving the building. It oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after impact. So how can the amount of energy that did structural damage be computed without knowing the distribution of mass of the building?

But that distribution of mass is going to be involved in the conservation of momentum in a supposed top down gravitational collapse also.


[edit on 26-4-2009 by psikeyhackr]

[edit on 26-4-2009 by psikeyhackr]

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:59 AM
I'm quite shocked that Mr. Mackey is discussing structural engineering
when he does not carry any sort of experience, or license in this field.

Even within his presentation, Mackey states that those who debate topics
outside of their field are less credible. So why should we take Ryan's
word over certified engineers from AE911?

Why should we accept his presentation when it does not follow any video
evidence of the tower collapse?

Why should we tolerate the errors in his mathematics as pointed out by
several individuals?

Mr. Mackey, I have asked Ron Weick to set up a debate between the two
of us. Are you going to accept? I'm seriously doubting your credentials
as you constantly make simple errors.

Just days ago you posted on Randi that leaning out an air/fuel mixture
would LOWER exhaust gas temperatures. How can you stand by that
nonsense and call yourself a scientist?

When are you going to correct the errors in your presentation to reflect
the actual collapse sequence of the twin towers?

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
This discussion is not only about can a plane impact a steel building, but what damage it causes.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]

Hi CameronFox, I am very interested in the topic of "damage it causes". I am glad you are also taking interest in this topic.

Could you please ask your physics expert to comment on the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of the lack of damage on Lloyde's cab's hood & small hole in the windshield, along with bent back seat and intact cushion of the back seat.

And I completely agree with you and your physics expert about no plane theory. So you see, as far as NPT goes, both believers and skeptics are in full agreement, so there is no point in discussing that theory over & over again. It is a waste of time.

But, the PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of Lloyde's cab anomaly is very different, that requires all help from PHYSICISTS, ENGINEERS & MATHEMATICIANS.

But CameronFox, believe it or not, very explicit threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY, MECHANICS of Lloyde's cab anomaly are being avoided by believers of official theory like PLAGUE. I will appreciate any help you can provide in this regard.

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA

This is a lecture on Physics... what are you afraid of?

That's what I am wondering CameronFox, why are defenders of official theory, even NASA scientists are avoiding the threads dealing with PHYSICS, GEOMETRY & MECHANICS of Lloydes cab, & TIME WARP in official video.

Rather, they are going after NPT guys AGAIN. Do you have any explanation for this strange behavior of defenders of official theory?

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

And you claiming that it could have been therm*te, nano-therm*te, super duper-double-secret-micro-nano-teeny-tiny therm*te, is only speculation and holds as much water as me claiming it was invisible fairies using magic pixydust in conjunction with the little gremlins that live insde all skyscrapers of America causing problems that brought down the WTCs. Why not? You didnt see them did you? They didnt want to be seen. They were invisible. But how do you know they werent there? I say they were because they must exist! Prove me wrong

How can I prove you wrong? Oh very simple....

1. I get my handy dandy Fairy Dust forensic chemical test as created by Tinkerbell. She is good at making things you know.

2. I test as much steel as I can from each building especially at key structural points and junctures.

3. When my Fairy Dust test kit samples results are analyzed and they are returned to me showing no fairy dust, I can then state with confidence that there was no fairy dust used.

How can you prove conclusively that no explosive devices were used be it c-4, tnt, or thermite to assist gravity in the destuction of the towers? You can't!


But wait, you can't. No tests were completed to determine if explosives were used.

Hell, even NIST didn't model the global collapse because it was too chaotic.
They didn't even scientifically prove the global collapse should have taken place but instead agreed to the Bazant paper. Mind you that one of the scientists who authored the paper can't even apply Newton's Law to buildings despite it being a universal law of nature.

NIST steel samples weren't hot enough. Their lab tests only got sagging floors and no failure based upon the temperatures recorded.
That is why the point remains and should be investigated. Why? Because it wasn't investigated! Forensic science.

So the world, not just the truth movement, is left with eyewitness statements, chemical forensic analysis of dust samples, physics, and Newton's law to explain the global collapse. And all of the above point to explosive devices and the need for a new investigation.

new topics

top topics
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in