Mackey's Ricochet Theory debunked by Hoffman, Ryan, Cole
Mackey answers this question mathematically (page 96 of the paper I sent you) and by explaining the physics behind the beam movement in easily understandable prose. You have not responded to Mackey, nor has anyone from the Truther Movement.
You refer to Ryan Mackey's paper, the most recent paper (2008, 3 years ago) of the supposedly "peer-reviewed" (by fellow peer Deniers) online "Journal of 9/11 Debunking."
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
The paper was refuted by Jim Hoffman, who also outlined "Mackey's Methods"
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey
and researcher Kevin Ryan
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
Ryan Mackey provided mathematical formulas, but no empirical evidence, or references to any experiments, to show if they hold up in real life. Experiments trump theory.
Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole showed, even in his back yard, that thermite explosives could hurl steel at great speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/physicsandreason#p/u/1/5d5iIoCiI8g
So we have an
experiment proving before your eyes that explosives can hurl heavy steel at great speeds.
vs. a
theory that steel can fall then ricochet over 600 feet, but has never been replicated in real life.
The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.
Mackey's "Ricochet Theory" claims that steel beams fell down, then bounced or did a "ricochet" over 600 feet laterally. Ever drop a steel beam and see how far it "bounces"? Not far. It is steel, not rubber.
The theory assumes that there is something solid to bounce
off of. But we can see the floors of the WTC are falling downwards, at nearly free fall speed. Next time you are in a descending elevator, drop a ball and see how high it bounces.
It is claimed that as steel and concrete fell down, it caused the floor below to fall in turn. That uses up energy. Mr. Mackey needs to subtract that energy from the energy required to hurl the steel sideways 600 feet. Maybe the NFL should use steel foot balls if they so easily bounce and travel 2 football fields.
The Richochet Theory is about as odd as dropping a fork at dinner, which hits the table leg near the floor, then bounces across the room and sticks itself in the wall. Even when throwing the fork downwards, this is unlikely to happen.
In order to embed themselves in the walls, the beams had to travel mostly laterally. By the time the beams arched and reached the AmEx and Winter Garden buildings, they were falling mostly downwards. Thus, they would hit the buildings with a glancing blow. Try hammering a nail in to a wall with a glancing blow. The nail bounces off the wall. You need to hammer the nail horizontally.
Try throwing a dart, either up in an arch, at a board. Or, try throwing a dart from 40 feet above the dart board, and see if it sticks in. It bounces off then down to the floor. But hurl it horizontally (as an explosive would) and you can get it to stick in the board.
According to Ryan's Richochet Theory, steel would have "bounced" up and out in an arch, or directly horizontally then into an arch. Near the WTC, the beam is travelling mostly horizontally, then progressively vertically. Even after 500 feet, it would have been travelling mostly downward.
Notice in the 3rd photo, the steel beam appears to have traveled upwards. Agreed, it could have hit, and sagged down. But we would expect to see more downward scraping marks on the building above the impact point, if the beam was falling mostly down at that point.
If not for hitting what appears to be the 15th Floor of the American Express Building, the steel beam looks like it would have traveled even farther from WTC 1, perhaps 700 over feet.
of Russia Today TV. She didn't broadcast my interview, but I'm in the background. 
