Question for Ryan Mackey

[Tony Szamboti]

Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.

The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?

There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.

 

[Blender Head]

The nose of Fl. 175 exited the South Tower?

 

[Bell]

The nose of Fl. 175 exited the South Tower?

Yep, and then it flew on to Cleveland.

 

[Gravy]

The nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exited the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

Let me take a stab at this: because it's an absurd idea about an impossibility that's promoted by crackpots like Killtown and Ace Baker.

You may as well ask why Ryan Mackey doesn't address the satanic faces that the NWO introduced into the smoke of the Twin Towers, or the pterodactyls and orbs seen there on 9/11.

You say you're a mechanical engineer, eh, Mr. Szamboti? You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of how the physical world works.

ETA: "free space area." Oh, mama!

 

[R.Mackey]

Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.

Not avoid completely, but less energy was expended against the slabs, yes.

The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?

You need to read NIST more carefully. "Nominally 8 degrees" is what NIST shows in Table 7-3 of NCSTAR1-2B, or more correctly 8 +/- 4 degrees, but this is only the result after video analysis. NIST's refined estimate, which also includes analysis of the exterior damage, revises that figure to 6 +/- 2 degrees, as shown in Table 7-4 on Page 170 of NCSTAR1-2B. You should quote the refined figures, not the video-only figures.

Furthermore, the case analysis suggests the more severe impact case is correct, and this biases us towards even flatter impact angles.

The nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exited the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

Because it isn't true. The heading of the aircraft meant it flew through a corner of the core structure. Yes, it went through a sixty-foot wide free space area, but only after sawing off the corner. It actually hit, and was estimated to have destroyed, more core columns than UA11 did, since UA11 hit the face squarely, with greater pitch angle, and at slower speed.

The free space has nothing to do with how many columns were affected. It's simple geometry.

I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.

Because that, too, is irrelevant in terms of core damage.

NIST estimated that wing segments, whether full of fuel or not, would not be sufficient in themselves to destroy an average core column (after contact with the perimeter). Only the fuselage or engines would. From the core's perspective, therefore, the wings only contribute to overall blast effect, which does load the core but is entirely secondary compared to the fuselage impact.

As a result, core damage is insensitive to roll angle. The roll angle is important for understanding ventilation, fire spread, and fuel dispersion, but really doesn't do anything for the core.

I would suggest you read the NIST report carefully, particularly NCSTAR1-2B, since all of your questions reflect confusion about NIST's results.

 

[boloboffin]

Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.

The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?

In figures E-23 and E-24 of NCSTAR1-2 (pp. lxxi-lxxii, pdf 73-74), the angles at impact are given as 10.6 degrees for Flight 11 and 6 degrees for Flight 175.

There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

Your interpretations of these videos is in error. The nose of flight 175 most assuredly was torn to shreds on impact.

I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.

The wings as a whole very likely made no contact at all with any part of the interior. The wings as shredded mass with high velocity most certainly did.

ETA: RMackey!

 

[R.Mackey]

well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.

 

[boloboffin]

well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.

I know, I know. I'm laughing on this end.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Let me take a stab at this: because it's an absurd idea about an impossibility that's promoted by crackpots like Killtown and Ace Baker.

You may as well ask why Ryan Mackey doesn't address the satanic faces that the NWO introduced into the smoke of the Twin Towers, or the pterodactyls and orbs seen there on 9/11.

You say you're a mechanical engineer, eh, Mr. Szamboti? You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of how the physical world works.

ETA: "free space area." Oh, mama!

Mark, you really should go play with someone of your own ad hominem brain size. Ryan doesn't dispute the free space yet you act like it is a big deal.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.

You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?

 

[R.Mackey]

You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?

I don't use the word "minimal." But there was less.

The momentum vector of the aircraft is what matters. In the case of UA11, even if we assume the aircraft had no material strength at all, more of it would have contacted a floor slab than AA175. Because of the violence of impact, while material strength is a factor, damage is still dominated by momentum. The plane can only absorb so much energy as it is destroyed into chunks, but those chunks are still going somewhere.

The outer skin of the fuselage is relatively weak, particularly in shear. It's relatively easy to dent or crush that fuselage upon entry. At top and bottom, whether the fuselage gets dented, peeled, or fragmented away by contact with floor slabs, we're still not dissipating much momentum.

What would matter, however, would be where the main spar and main deck of the aircraft impacted. Here the aircraft is strongest and most massive. If we replayed the collision of AA175, varying the exact point of impact up and down a couple of feet, such that the main deck directly hit or missed a floor slab, we would probably get noticeably different results.

Having said that, the diameter of the aircraft (and roll angle) means that the main deck can hit at most one floor slab. All of the NIST cases predict heavy damage to the "middle" slab. What I'm saying is that, had AA175's main deck (and landing gear, landing gear supports, main fuel tank, main beams, RAT, etc.) actually missed the floor slabs completely, we'd probably have seen even heavier damage to the core of WTC2.

 

[beachnut]

You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?

Bofors, welcome back.

 

[R.Mackey]

realcddeal is not bofors. He is Tony Szamboti.

We need to print up some score cards.

 

[Gravy]

Mark, you really should go play with someone of your own ad hominem brain size. Ryan doesn't dispute the free space yet you act like it is a big deal.

208 feet of floor slab, floor trusses, ductwork, lighting, cables, interior partitions, furnishings, human beings, and office equipment and supplies do not comprise "free space."

Still think the nose of flight 175 came out the far side of the building, after penetrating the exterior columns in two walls and passing through that "free space," Tony? Or would you like to revise your position?

Or perhaps you'd like to explain through which of these holes the nose passed?

The reason for my derision, Tony, is that you still refuse to read the NIST report, although I have asked you time and time again to do so. Capisce?

 

[beachnut]

not too smart to say this nose stuff

There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

NO! The nose did not exit the building.

The nose cone of Boeing aircraft is fiberglass! It was crushed on impact; there may of been a bright flash due to the RADAR, there is a weather RADAR behind the fiberglass nose cone. The RADAR is not shaped like a NOSE. The fiberglass was destroyed by the glass and alumni nun siding, then the RADAR smashed what was left of the FIBERGLASS as it hit.

This single idiotic statement

There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building

negates all your education.

This statement is indicative of all your 9/11 work. False junk made up to support the worn out lies of 9/11 truth.

Yep, and then it flew on to Cleveland.

I can't believe what he said...

 

[beachnut]

realcddeal is not bofors. He is Tony Szamboti.

We need to print up some score cards.

I thought he was Bofors. Bofors showed up when Tony left after his paper was shown to be made up of false information. I thought tony had changed his name to Bofors. Sorry. But after seeing the nose coming out of the building, I can see even Bofors may not be that capable of making a real stupid statement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't use the word "minimal." But there was less.

The momentum vector of the aircraft is what matters. In the case of UA11, even if we assume the aircraft had no material strength at all, more of it would have contacted a floor slab than AA175. Because of the violence of impact, while material strength is a factor, damage is still dominated by momentum. The plane can only absorb so much energy as it is destroyed into chunks, but those chunks are still going somewhere.

The outer skin of the fuselage is relatively weak, particularly in shear. It's relatively easy to dent or crush that fuselage upon entry. At top and bottom, whether the fuselage gets dented, peeled, or fragmented away by contact with floor slabs, we're still not dissipating much momentum.

What would matter, however, would be where the main spar and main deck of the aircraft impacted. Here the aircraft is strongest and most massive. If we replayed the collision of AA175, varying the exact point of impact up and down a couple of feet, such that the main deck directly hit or missed a floor slab, we would probably get noticeably different results.

Having said that, the diameter of the aircraft (and roll angle) means that the main deck can hit at most one floor slab. All of the NIST cases predict heavy damage to the "middle" slab. What I'm saying is that, had AA175's main deck (and landing gear, landing gear supports, main fuel tank, main beams, RAT, etc.) actually missed the floor slabs completely, we'd probably have seen even heavier damage to the core of WTC2.

Since the damage to the core is not seen it is strictly a judgement call and I understand that is what you are doing.

However, since the aircraft was rolled at 38 degrees with the left wing down, the main deck of the fusealge would have been to the east and further away from the core. Did you consider that?

 

[R.Mackey]

Since the damage to the core is not seen it is strictly a judgement call and I understand that is what you are doing.

However, since the aircraft was rolled at 38 degrees with the left wing down, the main deck of the fusealge would have been to the east and further away from the core. Did you consider that?

I am largely speaking hypothetically, yes, but it's difficult to imagine a different mechanism at impact.

The aircraft center of mass and center of pressure will line up with the main deck, not the center of area of the fuselage. Roll will therefore not move this to either side. Even if this was not true, we'd be talking about a translation of only a few inches. I fail to see how the roll angle introduces any problems with the impact scenario modeled by NIST.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

NO! The nose did not exit the building.

The nose cone of Boeing aircraft is fiberglass! It was crushed on impact; there may of been a bright flash due to the RADAR, there is a weather RADAR behind the fiberglass nose cone. The RADAR is not shaped like a NOSE. The fiberglass was destroyed by the glass and alumni nun siding, then the RADAR smashed what was left of the FIBERGLASS as it hit.

This single idiotic statement negates all your education.

This statement is indicative of all your 9/11 work. False junk made up to support the worn out lies of 9/11 truth.

I know the radome on the nose is fiberglass to allow the radar to see through it.

By nose I did not mean the actual radome. It should have been obvious. How about part of the fuselage can be seen exiting the opposite side of the building in video. Is that better for you?

 

[Bell]

I can't believe what he said...

Beachnut, got up on the wrong side of bed? You seem aggitated today.
My post was a shot at the troofers "UA93 landed at Cleveland" claim.