Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, you know I'm a huge fan of your work and you've helped me out a ton in the past, but to be honest I can't believe you wasted two half hours talking about the absolute stupidest claims in the 9/11 truth movement...

Then you missed the point just like everyone (so far) in the Truth Movement has.

The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.

It isn't a question of stomping any given truther's individual pet claim. This could go on forever, and even when we do, it has no effect.

Instead, again, I am giving you the tools to debunk any claim. That is the point of the lecture. It's like Ron says at the outset: He knew the idea of aircraft crashing through made sense, but he couldn't prove it or put numbers to it. This process does that for you.

In going through that discussion, it makes sense to present an expose on claims that (nearly) everyone is already comfortable with. You don't just jump in and tackle something difficult. You practice first.

Even though the "no planer" example is only believed by the weirdest of the weird, the discussion nonetheless addresses misconceptions held by numerous people, including the same Truth Movement supporters who claim to be up in arms about no-planers. For instance, what is the value of evidence and precedent. How do you construct a model, and why. How do you establish scientific fact without having pieces in your hand. I've seen any number of people here get confused on those points.

That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.

I haven't seen the third show yet. In it, do you move away from the no-planers to tackle the more mainstream claims?

The third show is about modeling, the effects of scaling, and using models to answer questions. We use the WTC collapse cases as a backdrop.

Are those more "mainstream" claims? To me, they're all pretty stupid, and I can say that with full confidence since I've done the analysis. Which ever one is your favorite, or anyone else's, is strictly individual opinion. Without exception, they're all wrong. If you disagree with this statement, I issue a challenge in the back of the presentation. Step up to the plate and let's talk about it.

 

[Gravy]

Ryan, you know I'm a huge fan of your work and you've helped me out a ton in the past, but to be honest I can't believe you wasted two half hours talking about the absolute stupidest claims in the 9/11 truth movement... that the planes couldn't have penetrated the buildings and that Flight 175 couldn't have flown as fast as it did. Two awesome shows nonetheless, but I think it would have been even cooler if you put your knowledge to work disproving the more common theories, like the microspheres or WTC7's collapse, or even free-fall speed.

I haven't seen the third show yet. In it, do you move away from the no-planers to tackle the more mainstream claims?

I share your frustration, but it was Ron's choice to keep bringing the subject back to no-planer claims, which is why they only made it through 16 slides in two shows. You can see the original 45 or so slides here.

It's important to focus on the purpose of the shows, though: not to debunk specific claims, but how to create simple models to help understand the physics involved. The process is applicable to many claims made by truther and rationalists.

ETA: as usual, Mackey said it first and better.

 

[Gravy]

Instead, again, I am giving you the tools to debunk any claim. That is the point of the lecture. It's like Ron says at the outset: He knew the idea of aircraft crashing through made sense, but he couldn't prove it or put numbers to it. This process does that for you.

Indeed. Here's a good example of people who aren't truthers who could have employed that process. In 2001 a risk assesment report for the WTC towers was completed by an insurance agency, in anticipation of Silverstein's lease. Here's an excerpt (bolding mine):

Aircraft Striking a Tower

This scenario is within the realm of the possible, but highly unlikely.

In 1946 a military aircraft struck the Empire State Building. Since that time the manner in which aircraft are "controlled" has dramatically changed. In the event such [sic] an unlikely occurrence, what might result? The structural designers of the towers have publicly stated that in their opinion that either of the Towers could with stand such an impact from a large modern passenger aircraft.

The ensuing fire would damage the "skin", in this scenario, as the spilled fuel would fall to the Plaza level where it would have to be extinguished by the NYC Fire Department. The replacement of the "skin" is estimated at 35% Of the building replacement value or $420m. Loss of rents for 1 year or $150m for a total estimate of <$600m.

 

[Steelmage]

I did not read the other post, watch the first video. So basically what you are doing is teaching people grade school physics.

 

[LashL]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4531559#post4531559

Excellent job, R. Mackey. Very nicely done, indeed. I'm looking forward to part three.

And it's good to see Ron in action again, too, after his departure from the forum. I've missed him.

 

[Reheat]

And it's good to see Ron in action again, too, after his departure from the forum. I've missed him.

Wanna puke? Go over to pffft and see how they treated him....

No surprises there.....

 

[beachnut]

You have to keep doing these videos; this is cool as p4t expert dolt posts pure stupid:

As a Certified Flight Instructor myself, who has taught many students from the ground up (no pun intended), many of whom are flying airline transport aircraft today, and after watching Mackey trying to explain "parasite drag", i can firmly say, without a doubt, Mackey doesnt have a clue and Lear does when it comes to aerodynamics. This is the reason Mackey will never debate any opponent, let alone P4T, and the reason you lap his BS up.

I can't believe he posted his proof of stupid

my students are flying the majors

 

[Gravy]

Mackey will never debate any opponent? Exactly what has he been doing here for the past three years? And did he run from David Ray Griffin or was it the other way around?

Strong words from the coward Balsamo, who twice fled like a scared bunny from debate opportunities with me, then cut off my posting privileges at his site and said I should be killed.

Internet Tough Guy Syndrome, indeed.

 

[R.Mackey]

You have to keep doing these videos; this is cool as p4t expert dolt posts pure stupid:

We've already seen what Cap'n Bob has to say. He comes around here once in a while, makes a fool of himself, and then gets banned again.

For those reading who may not be familiar with the term, however, let me go into "parasite drag" in more detail.

Parasite drag (or parasitic drag, I've heard both) can be thought of as bluff-body drag. Meaning, if you move an object through the air, and you measure the drag, i.e. you set up a force balance and actually measure the total air resistance, that's the force you see. You can get into more detail and classify the contributions individually, like skin friction, dissipation into the wake, treat the boundary layer, and so on, but it all adds up to a total force. This drag typically follows the usual drag equation:

F_d = 1/2 C_d ρ v² A​

where ρ is air density, v is velocity, A is the area facing the wind, and C_d is a dimensionless number called the Drag Coefficient, which is something you measure, dependent on geometry. Pretty basic.

When we talk specifically about aircraft, however, there is another contribution that we tend to treat separately. This is known as the induced drag. It's a wake effect, specifically one caused by aerfoils. Our aerfoil is using the freestream to create lift. Well, it doesn't get to do that for free. The aerfoil also creates drag as a consequence of disturbing the freestream (you can also treat this as an effect of the vorticity generated to cause lift, but either representation is accurate).

In aircraft design, we usually simplify our wings to have a given efficiency -- a lift over drag ratio -- and leave it at that, assuming it is a constant. This isn't strictly correct, but it's close enough for most situations.

The equation for lift is similar to the equation for drag above. Replace C_d with C_L and you have the right approximate formalism.

However, because of the way we use wings, this induced drag behaves differently. In level flight, we need to create a constant amount of lift, no matter how fast we're going -- just enough lift to oppose gravity. At slow speeds, this means the v² term goes way down, so we need to raise C_L accordingly. At high speeds, the opposite happens, and we lower C_L. We change the coefficient of lift (primarily) by changing the angle of attack, i.e. how much the wings are tilted up facing the flow.

Now, when we change the angle of attack, we not only change C_L, we also change the drag coefficient -- but only of the wings. This is the induced drag, and therefore it actually goes down as the aircraft moves faster. The bluff-body drag, i.e. the parasite drag of the rest of the aircraft, should stay more or less the same, until angle of attack gets so extreme that our assumptions don't hold any more.

To first order, the coefficient of lift is linear in angle of attack, and the induced drag is proportional to the square of the lift, i.e. proportional to the square of the angle of attack.

As a result, under normal flying conditions, the induced drag actually goes down as you go faster. Flying faster means you reduce angle of attack to reduce lift, and this reduces induced drag faster and faster.


Now, to address Mr. Lear, and Cap'n Bob's confusion about the talk -- the argument put forth is that AA 175 couldn't reach the estimated 542 MPH at impact because of parasite drag. Again, this is obviously false, because Egypt Air 990, another Boeing 767, went faster at lower altitude, so it can be done.

But now they're (apparently) complaining that parasite drag isn't the whole story. Well, normally that's true, there is also induced drag. But, in this situation, we can completely ignore induced drag. Parasite drag is, indeed, the whole story.

Why? Simple. This plane isn't going flat and level. It's diving. It doesn't need to generate any lift at all. No lift, no induced drag. QED.

Even if there was, it's going so fast that the induced drag would be a minor component of the total drag. Nonetheless, as I indicated on Hardfire, parasite drag is all we need to worry about for this problem.

Hope that was worth my typing. This probably belongs in this thread instead of here. Check it out if you're interested.

 

[beachnut]

...
Hope that was worth my typing. This probably belongs in this thread instead of here. Check it out if you're interested.

If only Balsamo would use knowledge. I can’t believe Balsamo, who was an instructor is so stupid on drag; don’t worry, he was not an instructor of jet pilots who fly you. Most pilots who do fly big jets are not limited by their instructor’s delusions, or limitations. Sad, but true.

 

[RKOwens4]

Then you missed the point just like everyone (so far) in the Truth Movement has.

The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.

It isn't a question of stomping any given truther's individual pet claim. This could go on forever, and even when we do, it has no effect.

Instead, again, I am giving you the tools to debunk any claim. That is the point of the lecture. It's like Ron says at the outset: He knew the idea of aircraft crashing through made sense, but he couldn't prove it or put numbers to it. This process does that for you.

In going through that discussion, it makes sense to present an expose on claims that (nearly) everyone is already comfortable with. You don't just jump in and tackle something difficult. You practice first.

Even though the "no planer" example is only believed by the weirdest of the weird, the discussion nonetheless addresses misconceptions held by numerous people, including the same Truth Movement supporters who claim to be up in arms about no-planers. For instance, what is the value of evidence and precedent. How do you construct a model, and why. How do you establish scientific fact without having pieces in your hand. I've seen any number of people here get confused on those points.

That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.



The third show is about modeling, the effects of scaling, and using models to answer questions. We use the WTC collapse cases as a backdrop.

Are those more "mainstream" claims? To me, they're all pretty stupid, and I can say that with full confidence since I've done the analysis. Which ever one is your favorite, or anyone else's, is strictly individual opinion. Without exception, they're all wrong. If you disagree with this statement, I issue a challenge in the back of the presentation. Step up to the plate and let's talk about it.

You're completely right. In the physics class I'm taking now we're going over Newton's laws and I don't think that he created them with the intent of debunking no-planers. Can't wait to see part three.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

911 appears in the king james version? or what Niclas? your point?

The Hindenburg explosion

* 1919 American Wingfoot Air Express. Caught fire over downtown Chicago, 2 passengers, one crewmember and 10 people on the ground killed, 2 parachuted to safety.

* 1921 British R38. Built for US, broke in half and burned after suffering structural failure during high-speed trials over Hull. 44 killed, five survivors.

* 1922 American Roma (ex-Italian T34). Hit power lines in Virginia and caught fire. 34 killed, 11 survivors.

* 1923 French Dixmude (ex Zeppelin LZ114). Caught in storm over Mediterranean and presumably burned in the air. All of the crew (more than 50) killed.

* 1925 US Navy USS Shenandoah. Caught in storm over Noble County, Ohio, and broke into several pieces. 14 killed, 29 survivors.

* 1928 Italian semi-rigid Italia. Crashed on return from successful trip to North Pole. 7 killed, 9 survivors.

* 1930 British R101. Rushed to completion, dove into ground during rainstorm in France. 48 killed, 6 survivors.

* 1933 USS Akron. Lost at sea off coast of New Jersey after severe storm. 73 dead, 3 survivors.

* 1934 Soviet Union W-7 bis.

* 1935 USS Macon crashed off coast of Point Sur, Monterey, California after sustaining tail damage due to crosswinds. 2 dead, 81 survivors.

* 1937 German Hindenburg burned on landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey. 35 dead, 62 survivors.

* 1938 Soviet W6 OSOAVIAKhIM - 16 out of 19 crew died after crashing into a mountain 300 km south of Murmansk on a practice flight for an arctic rescue mission.

* 1960 On 6 July, a US Navy ZPG-3W, crashed into the sea off New Jersey. 18 of the 21 crew were killed.

Titanic the unsinkable sinks

http://hotleaderceleb.blogspot.com/2009/01/rms-titanic-survivors-iceberg.html

Contrary to popular mythology, the Titanic was never described as "unsinkable", without qualification, until after she sank. There are three trade publications (one of which was probably never published) that describe the Titanic as unsinkable, prior to its sinking, but they all qualify the claim, either with the word practically or with the phrase as far as possible. There is no evidence that the notion of the Titanic's unsinkability had entered public consciousness until after the sinking.

The space shuttle Columbia destroyed because of a piece of Styrofoam basically

http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol1/chapters/chapter6.pdf

Discussion of Foam Strikes
Prior to the Rogers Commission

Foam strikes were a topic of management concern at the time of the Challenger accident. In fact, during the Rogers Commission accident investigation, Shuttle Program Manager Arnold Aldrich cited a contractorʼs concerns about foam shedding to illustrate how well the Shuttle Program manages risk:

On a series of four or five external tanks, the thermal insulation around the inner tank … had large divots of insulation coming off and impacting the Orbiter. We found significant amount of damage to one Orbiter after a flight and … on the subsequent flight we had a camera in the equivalent of the wheel well, which took a picture of the tank after separation, and we determined that this was in fact the cause of the damage. At that time, we wanted to be able to proceed with the launch program if it was acceptable … so we undertook discussions of what would be acceptable in terms of potential field repairs, and during those discussions, Rockwell was very conservative because, rightly, damage to the Orbiter TPS [Thermal Protection System] is damage to the Orbiter system, and it has a very stringent environmentto experience during the re-entry phase.

 

[Alt+F4]

* 1919 American Wingfoot Air Express. Caught fire over downtown Chicago, 2 passengers, one crewmember and 10 people on the ground killed, 2 parachuted to safety.

* 1921 British R38. Built for US, broke in half and burned after suffering structural failure during high-speed trials over Hull. 44 killed, five survivors.

* 1922 American Roma (ex-Italian T34). Hit power lines in Virginia and caught fire. 34 killed, 11 survivors.

* 1923 French Dixmude (ex Zeppelin LZ114). Caught in storm over Mediterranean and presumably burned in the air. All of the crew (more than 50) killed.

* 1925 US Navy USS Shenandoah. Caught in storm over Noble County, Ohio, and broke into several pieces. 14 killed, 29 survivors.

* 1928 Italian semi-rigid Italia. Crashed on return from successful trip to North Pole. 7 killed, 9 survivors.

* 1930 British R101. Rushed to completion, dove into ground during rainstorm in France. 48 killed, 6 survivors.

* 1933 USS Akron. Lost at sea off coast of New Jersey after severe storm. 73 dead, 3 survivors.

* 1934 Soviet Union W-7 bis.

* 1935 USS Macon crashed off coast of Point Sur, Monterey, California after sustaining tail damage due to crosswinds. 2 dead, 81 survivors.

* 1937 German Hindenburg burned on landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey. 35 dead, 62 survivors.

* 1938 Soviet W6 OSOAVIAKhIM - 16 out of 19 crew died after crashing into a mountain 300 km south of Murmansk on a practice flight for an arctic rescue mission.

* 1960 On 6 July, a US Navy ZPG-3W, crashed into the sea off New Jersey. 18 of the 21 crew were killed.

When you simply cut and paste from Wikipedia it might help if you actually read the stuff first. The only thing these crashes had in common was that they were all airships. None was the same as what happened to the Hindenburg.

Was the Payne Stewart crash the same as Tenerife airport disaster? After all, they both involved airplane crashes and people died.

 

[twinstead]

It would have been helpful if he would have done a search for every time in history that two fuel-laden jet liners have been flown at high speed into two 110 story buildings.

 

[Corsair 115]

When you simply cut and paste from Wikipedia it might help if you actually read the stuff first.

Well, consider who you're getting the response from. He's the same fellow who thought that most Japanese kamikaze aircraft during WWII had bombs in their noses. Now, how a single-engine aircraft replaces the engine with a bomb and is then still able to take off and fly to the target I'm not quite sure.

Homeland Insurgency doesn't know a thing about aircraft, WWII or otherwise.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Well, consider who you're getting the response from. He's the same fellow who thought that most Japanese kamikaze aircraft during WWII had bombs in their noses. Now, how a single-engine aircraft replaces the engine with a bomb and is then still able to take off and fly to the target I'm not quite sure.

Homeland Insurgency doesn't know a thing about aircraft, WWII or otherwise.

Oh SO wrong self proclaimed expert on everything WWII and flying.

I said kamikaze's sometimes packed the nose of their plane with explosives.

Is this not true expert?

What you don't want to address is the fact that Mackey showed a picture in his PP presentation of a battleship AFTER a kamikaze plane both impaled the ship AND exploded a bomb AND started a fuel fed fire.

Still the ship was put back in commission a month later. Is the WTC back in commission 8 years later?

Mackey in his presentation using this picture as an example implies that we are supposed to come to the conclusion that sometimes velocity can do a little damage but sometimes it can do a lot. This without ever proving EXACTLY how fast the WTC planes were going. Never mind how much they were slowed down on impact or how much energy they had left to damage the amount of columns NIST settled on in their worst case scenario.

I mean we are here to talk about 9/11 no? Or do you just want to turn this into a discussion about WWII aeronautics for lack of anything else?

This insinuation is not just about the impaling of the thin armor of the ship. We are supposed to think that this is some kind of comparison to 9/11. As if just because the plane did impale the steel columns of the WTC that this could also cause the WTC to suffer global collapse.

Oh I know it will be claimed this is not the intention but please... give me break.

Don't try to make comparisons to 9/11 if you have NONE.

NONE

 

[beachnut]

Well, consider who you're getting the response from. He's the same fellow who thought that most Japanese kamikaze aircraft during WWII had bombs in their noses. Now, how a single-engine aircraft replaces the engine with a bomb and is then still able to take off and fly to the target I'm not quite sure.

Homeland Insurgency doesn't know a thing about aircraft, WWII or otherwise.

HI does not understand the topic. Best part of your post, you did not quote the nonsense.

With HI on ignore you never know he is off topic and not witness his continued ignorance on 911. Why is he trashing Mackey's thread when he can't contribute to physics?

 

[psikeyhackr]

What kind of physics is this:

At 12:15 into the video the interviewer said, "a commercial airliner weighing tens of thousands of tons can't break through a mostly glass facade of a building" and R. Mackey says, "Yeah, that's right".

And then later Mackey says, "we need to put numbers on the problem."

An airliner weighing tens of thousands of tons?

Actually it can't fly! ROFL

It was less than 175 tons. I find it curious that Mackey didn't catch and correct that right away. I went back and listened multiple times to be sure I heard it right. LOL

I also searched this thread to see if anyone pointed it out already. NOPE!

Real scientific guys!

Is it correct to say the facade of the WTC was MOSTLY GLASS since the columns were on the outside? Off the top of my head I don't recall the width of the glass relative to the columns but there were 56 columns on each side of the building and they had a square cross section they weren't just flat like glass.

And beachnut is saying my collapse video is stupid in another thread. ROFLMAO

psik

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

What kind of physics is this:

At 12:15 into the video the interviewer said, "a commercial airliner weighing tens of thousands of tons can't break through a mostly glass facade of a building" and R. Mackey says, "Yeah, that's right".

And then later Mackey says, "we need to put numbers on the problem."

An airliner weighing tens of thousands of tons?

Actually it can't fly! ROFL

It was less than 175 tons. I find it curious that Mackey didn't catch and correct that right away. I went back and listened multiple times to be sure I heard it right. LOL

I also searched this thread to see if anyone pointed it out already. NOPE!

Real scientific guys!

Is it correct to say the facade of the WTC was MOSTLY GLASS since the columns were on the outside? Off the top of my head I don't recall the width of the glass relative to the columns but there were 56 columns on each side of the building and they had a square cross section they weren't just flat like glass.

And beachnut is saying my collapse video is stupid in another thread. ROFLMAO

psik

It is funny psik. I mean who would come here for critical thinking and science?

It makes me wonder sometimes why all of these self-proclaimed critical thinkers are so passionate and dedicated towards something they also claim is just nonsense. Some of these "debunkers" are here 24/7.

You would think that such well to do geniuses would have something better to do. Cancer still needs a cure.

Who are they trying to convince? Those they claim are crazy?

I mean if even that were the case isn't that kind of mean spirited to pick on the mentally ill and call them names?

So who are they trying to convince here?

Is it all just communal denial?

Are they worried about something?

 

[Gravy]

psikeyhackr, I suggest that you review Ryan's presentation slides if you're having trouble understanding the physics. I'm sure Ryan will be glad to respond if you have questions about the actual calculations and models he presented.