Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

Ryan, if you don't mind indulging a simple question. I'm about 6 mins in. Is this presentation strictly about addressing whether or not the airliners penetrated the bldgs, or will you be addressing the collapses? Thanks.
 
Macky makes the case for explosives

R.Mackey said:
Recently I alluded to a project I had in the works. I am pleased to announce that the project is now ready. A few weeks ago, Ron Wieck (known to veterans as pomeroo) and I recorded a series of shows for the public-access show Hardfire, discussing the physics involved in the September 11th conspiracy nonsense we've all had to suffer through for the past few years.

The first show is now ready, and can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673
There are two others which should be ready in a week or so.

We did these shows as a kind of coda to the never-ending conspiracy arguments that now seem to be dying out. Instead of taking on any individual or specific wild claim, what I attempt to do instead is walk through the process of science, and show how anyone can apply this approach to any claim one might encounter. The scientific method is available to anyone, and need not be expensive, either. I attempt to demonstrate this by walking through two of the more common Truth Movement misconceptions from first principles.

I apologize up front for the video and audio quality -- we make do with the equipment we have. I could not travel to NYC to join Ron in the studio, nor could he visit me in LA for fear of running into the professional wrestler who has been embezzling his NWO paychecks. But I hope the message is readable and clear.

An extended version of the presentation used in these shows will be available shortly at either of the two following websites: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey or http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Any comments or feedback regarding the show, follow-up questions, etc. are welcome in this thread. Off-topic posts will be mercilessly reported regardless of source. :D Enjoy.
Click to expand...

"We know that some impacts do only a little bit of damage but some do a lot more." -Mackey on the Oct 1944 kamaikaze attack on the USS Franklin

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/CV13/Kamikaze/

Although hits were scored it was not enough to deflect the attack and the plane struck the ship on the flight deck just forward of the number three elevator. With its high velocity the plane was easily able to smash through the light armor of the flight deck and carry its bomb through.

With a loud roar and blast of flame the bomb exploded, wrenching upwards the edges of a hole 30 by 35 feet in diameter. Shrapnel tore through the galley and hangar deck spaces, followed by gasoline and flame.

Good job Mackey
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Good job Mackey
Click to expand...

Are you trying to claim that the presence of a bomb in the plane allowed it to penetrate the ship's armour more easily? Or just that the resultant damage was partially as a result of an explosive?

If the latter, you appear to have missed the point.
 
e^n said:
Are you trying to claim that the presence of a bomb in the plane allowed it to penetrate the ship's armour more easily? Or just that the resultant damage was partially as a result of an explosive?

If the latter, you appear to have missed the point.
Click to expand...
I think he's claiming the towers had more armor than an aircraft carrier ("light armor" bold). Either way he missed the point.:o
 
e^n said:
Are you trying to claim that the presence of a bomb in the plane allowed it to penetrate the ship's armour more easily? Or just that the resultant damage was partially as a result of an explosive?

If the latter, you appear to have missed the point.
Click to expand...

No I'm pointing to the fact that in Mackey's presentation he shows a picture of the damage to the USS Franklin after it wasn't just impacted by a plane going 300 miles an hour but also after a bomb went off.

And then claims in trying to make a case for the WTC damage...

"We know that some impacts do only a little bit of damage but some do a lot more."
 
DGM said:
I think he's claiming the towers had more armor than an aircraft carrier ("light armor" bold). Either way he missed the point.:o
Click to expand...

US carrier flight decks in WW2 were made of wood. What is HI claiming here, that the planes that hit the towers had bombs in them?
 
No I'm pointing to the fact that in Mackey's presentation he shows a picture of the damage to the USS Franklin after it wasn't just impacted by a plane going 300 miles an hour but also after a bomb went off.

And then claims in trying to make a case for the WTC damage...

"We know that some impacts do only a little bit of damage but some do a lot more."
Click to expand...

Physics, Pfffft! Who need physics when you have sushi-towers and cardboard boxes at home, Huh? Answer me that little gem "Mr. NASA-man".;)
 
e^n said:
Are you trying to claim that the presence of a bomb in the plane allowed it to penetrate the ship's armour more easily?
Click to expand...

No, I think he's trying to point out that if a bomb went off after something made a hole in something else once in 1944, that means that, whenever something makes a hole in something else, a bomb must go off straight afterwards, therefore we know that there were bombs in the WTC towers because something made a hole in something else. It's unusually logical and well thought out by HI's standards.

Dave
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
With a loud roar and blast of flame the bomb exploded, wrenching upwards the edges of a hole 30 by 35 feet in diameter. Shrapnel tore through the galley and hangar deck spaces, followed by gasoline and flame.
Click to expand...

You missed the point. The point is that the hole was made without any explosives. The bomb did not go off until after it had already penetrated, and the aircraft with it. Whatever damage or collapse happened afterwards is not central to the discussion.

Since a lightweight aluminum aircraft, diving shallowly at 300 knots, can penetrate the solid, plated, wooden and steel deck of an aircraft carrier -- that is designed to have aircraft hit it fairly hard and not even warp -- this should alert you that aircraft can indeed penetrate steel structures.

We further verify this with calculations in the back half of the talk.

This is just the kind of stubborn illogic I expected, however.
 
Heiwa said:
Pls do not make the mistake of NIST and Bazant & Co to assume that part C is rigid! It is not! You must treat part C exactly like part A - flexible with a thin floor and fairly solid columns.
Click to expand...

You're jumping ahead, but you should note that I do not make this assumption at all. I make no claims about the upper block's rigidity whatsoever.

Step 2 of my collapse model considers conservation of momentum, not energy. That law, and my application of it, holds no matter how flexible the upper block is. No matter how much it squashes in on itself, its momentum remains the same.

The only place in the model that compaction can affect the equations is in Step 3. The compaction force is no greater than the resistance of the lower columns, and lasts for no longer than it takes those columns to buckle. The amount of compaction that occurs from this contribution is nonzero, but negligible. This was discussed by Dr. Bazant in his blanket response to naive criticisms of his earlier papers.

I also point out that in your model, your 0.2 and 0.3 yield forces are wrong. You have been challenged to back these up in another thread, and you have lost the challenge.
 
Heiwa said:
Evidently Heiwa does not suggest that the dynamic contact force is m g! Before first failure and after arrest of local failures the static contact force is however m g (as per Newton).

No, at collision contact at velocity v you have to consider the energy E applied (m v²/2) and what variable force and pressures and associated deformations and failures E can produce at various contact points. This simple fact forms part of the first paragrahs of my article - see link above. Pls, do not misquote me!
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that you have never quoted Newton's third law to explain WTC collapse behaviour in terms of dynamic (i.e. impact) events ?

And, yes, as you agree above, kinetic energy would be quite a consideration in the "2 mile drop" scenario would it not? 1/2 * mv2 at (presumably) terminal velocity from 2 miles. And yet you have consistently denied that such a falling section of WTC could utterly destroy the lower section.

I suspect, Heiwa, that you are finally beginning to understand the monumental errors you have made regarding basic physics ?
 
R.Mackey said:
You're jumping ahead, but you should note that I do not make this assumption at all. I make no claims about the upper block's rigidity whatsoever.

Step 2 of my collapse model considers conservation of momentum, not energy. That law, and my application of it, holds no matter how flexible the upper block is. No matter how much it squashes in on itself, its momentum remains the same.

The only place in the model that compaction can affect the equations is in Step 3. The compaction force is no greater than the resistance of the lower columns, and lasts for no longer than it takes those columns to buckle. The amount of compaction that occurs from this contribution is nonzero, but negligible. This was discussed by Dr. Bazant in his blanket response to naive criticisms of his earlier papers.

I also point out that in your model, your 0.2 and 0.3 yield forces are wrong. You have been challenged to back these up in another thread, and you have lost the challenge.
Click to expand...
Only a non-engineer would assume that Rigid=undeformable, anyway.
Bazant used it in terms of rigid-body dynamics, and did not address the Rigidity of the Structure, IIRC...
 
R.Mackey said:
You missed the point. The point is that the hole was made without any explosives. The bomb did not go off until after it had already penetrated, and the aircraft with it. Whatever damage or collapse happened afterwards is not central to the discussion.

Since a lightweight aluminum aircraft, diving shallowly at 300 knots, can penetrate the solid, plated, wooden and steel deck of an aircraft carrier -- that is designed to have aircraft hit it fairly hard and not even warp -- this should alert you that aircraft can indeed penetrate steel structures.

We further verify this with calculations in the back half of the talk.

This is just the kind of stubborn illogic I expected, however.
Click to expand...

I miss nothing you should know by now.

In the comparison you try to make to the WTC you show a picture of the USS Franklin after the impact of a kamikaze plane and a bomb.

For one I believe it is debukers who claim if there were any explosives in the WTC on the floors that were impacted by the plane then the explosives would have been destroyed. This is of course irrelevant as to any proof of what happened to the towers on 9/11 but I just thought that I would point to that debunker talking point in relation to what it is you are trying to imply.

You claim that a plane with a bomb on it first impaled the USS Franklin and then the bomb that was on said plane exploded after the penetration?

Fine.

Where were these explosives? Was it just a bomb the plane was carrying? Didn't kamikazes also pack the nose of their planes with explosives? How would you know? How could you know how many and when they went off? After all isn't the model of the plane used still debated to this day never mind what it was packing?

In any case I don't know if any explosives were needed to impale the WTC or bring it down. I just know to this day nothing has ever brought down a steel constructed high-rise completely without explosives being involved.

This is why someone like you with all your talent and education still struggled to find a valid comparison.

Thank you for your contribution. Keep trying. I do think it helps.
 
R.Mackey said:
You're jumping ahead, but you should note that I do not make this assumption at all. I make no claims about the upper block's rigidity whatsoever.

Step 2 of my collapse model considers conservation of momentum, not energy. That law, and my application of it, holds no matter how flexible the upper block is. No matter how much it squashes in on itself, its momentum remains the same.

The only place in the model that compaction can affect the equations is in Step 3. The compaction force is no greater than the resistance of the lower columns, and lasts for no longer than it takes those columns to buckle. The amount of compaction that occurs from this contribution is nonzero, but negligible. This was discussed by Dr. Bazant in his blanket response to naive criticisms of his earlier papers.

I also point out that in your model, your 0.2 and 0.3 yield forces are wrong. You have been challenged to back these up in another thread, and you have lost the challenge.
Click to expand...

I am just assisting you getting your model right and not jumping at all (like my grandchildren in my bed!). In Step 2 the upper part C should not be shown as a block M = k m but as an assembly of floors/columns where the lowest floor (or rather the ceiling + floor trusses) of part C with mass m collides with the top floor of part A, also with mass m. You should also consider indicating the failed columns between parts C and A (and the columns of part C). The assumed perfect impact floor/floor is not realistic.

Momentums are nice to work with in solid mechanics but in structural analysis we generally work with deformations/strains/energies, particularly so in damage analysis, where the original structure changes after failures.

In Step 3 of your model the uppermost floor of part A is added to the the upper part C - still a block, now with M = (k + 1) m "M has gotten bigger". That is not possible! This is the 'pan cake' theory, where part A upper columns only are broken like spaghetti and the part A floors are just pushed down (and accelerated!) one by one by a rigid upper part C, which NIST has abandoned long time ago.

Collision contact between two similar structures, parts C and A, does not result in that! You must study what happens to part C and all its elements and adjust your model accordingly.

Re 'yield forces' (sic) in my papers, you probably mean the load of the upper part C (M = k m) and resulting static compressive forces/stresses in the columns at interface parts C/A prior destruction. They are described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm#2 .

The compressive stresses are about 0.2 and 0.3 of yield stress in perimeter/core before plane impact and about 0.3 in east/west walls just prior destruction.

Evidently the local stresses in the columns will increase, if part C columns actually impact on part A columns, as you suggest in your model, and it is also described further down in my paper. Then the dynamic forces/stresses are a function of energy input and deformations (and the static stresses are temporaily 0 = columns cut off)

My latest calculations indicate that the total stresses in the columns will not increase >3 of the previous static ones, which means that only elastic deformations will take place = the bounce! Reason being that the structure is pretty flexible and that you can argue about the drop height/energy involved. If you increase the energy input so that the columns fail locally, the upper part C (M = k m) will slide off part A and we are back to my final model, where the columns slices the floors ... in both parts C and A. Collapse arrest should follow pretty soon.

I enjoyed your show for Hardfire. Hardfire, not knowing anything about physics or mechanics or structural analysis and sluring about conspiracy theories, looked a bit confused when you started to talk about the derivate of velocity (acceleration), etc. Keep it simpler!

It is only the velocity of the moving mass (the energy) at collision that is of any importance and produces failures. If that energy is not totally consumed at the gravity fed collision, evidently the moving mass will continue to accelerate and produce more collisions and the rubble it produces need also be accelerated, etc, etc, but I can assure you that a small part C of similar structure as bigger part A cannot simply destroy part A in a crush down.

Hopefully you will agree to that, when you have got your model right? :)
 
R.Mackey said:
Since a lightweight aluminum aircraft, diving shallowly at 300 knots, can penetrate the solid, plated, wooden and steel deck of an aircraft carrier -- that is designed to have aircraft hit it fairly hard and not even warp -- this should alert you that aircraft can indeed penetrate steel structures.
Click to expand...

I've always felt that the image of the USS Hinsdale illustrates this point very nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom