Hardfire: Physics of 9/11

[Gravy]

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!

Readers will recall that the ">3" is the factor of safety that Heiwa arbitrarily pulled out of thin air, and when challenged to justify, he said it didn't matter. Calculations, indeed!

 

[Pardalis]

That's helpful. So am I to assume that Pt 1 is strictly about the physics of the impacts? If so, I'll stop watching this one and check out PT II.

You should listen anyway, M. Mackey gives very good insights as to why scientists use models and about the scientific process in general, both of which you seem to have problems with.

 

[Klimax]

I am just few minutes in and have one wish.Louder audio track.I am listening on notebook and it is bit harder to listen to it.Other comments later.

ETA:About audio again:Those distorions are making it bit difficult at times to follow.Am I right that it was done as AV stream (like video conference)?Maybe prerecording on R Mackey's side each reply before sending it over net,could improve quality.(Compression codec would have better time in preserving quality.)

 

[RedIbis]

You should listen anyway, M. Mackey gives very good insights as to why scientists use models and about the scientific process in general, both of which you seem to have problems with.

I don't doubt for a second that no plane nonsense is easy to refute. I'll wait until pt II is up so I can see how the scientific method is applied to a lack of core column samples experiencing temps above 250C in the towers or the WTC 7 collapse theory without column 79. In other words, how are hypotheses argued without the necessary physical evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

I'll wait until pt II is up so I can see how the scientific method is applied to a lack of core column samples experiencing temps above 250C in the towers or the WTC 7 collapse theory without column 79. In other words, how are hypotheses argued without the necessary physical evidence.

You don't even accept DNA evidence, why would you accept core column samples as evidence?

What Mackey says in the first part about how models help science and the scientific method can easily be applied to the rest of the 9/11 truth claims.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm with you, RedIbis. I don't think that more than a handful of people really need Ryan's explanations in this part. It's very basic stuff. On the other hand, if those handful of people learn something from this show, it is a success. I liked how Ryan reacted to the nonsensical political allusions of the host, who is still obsessed with the likes of Morgan Reynolds and the crusade against "truthers", bordering on the insane (but in a cute way).

 

[Klimax]

Another comments:
1)About aircraft and carrier.Those carriers serving in British navy had fully armored deck,so damage was usually far smaller.Ofc it is further from WTC then US carriers,but then when were truthers close to reality...
2)Please,switch to SI units and if it is neccessary put US units in brackets/parenthesis.Then it will be another perfect resource.(Same however goes for others as well,I understand that it happend in USA and majority of truthers are US citizens,but that does not mean that insanity does not spread outside.Case in point:Heiwa!) Thank you.

Otherwise very good.
Is this prerecorded or live show?

 

[Furcifer]

I think Ron had asked me about Newton's Second Law, however. For that I was thinking of the geniuses who try to apply static analysis to dynamic situations. Search the Forums for "net force = 0" and you'll find them.

This is by far the biggest problem. I'll be honest, I could have been a rocket scientist but I got caught up on the difference between "force" and "energy". There's no shame in that! Those of us in the "force" camp become architects and building engineers. Those of us in the "energy" camp become crash test dummies and rocket scientists.

ps- I'm not trying to be cynical, but there is some irony in the fact that the whole program essentially deals with you explaining to Americans why bullets kill instead of simply bouncing off people and knocking them over.

 

[Baylor]

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.

Good god, you absolutely love that "first time in history" trutherism.

Anyway, maybe I should save this for later but since "the case for explosives" has already been brought up I guess now's a good time. Let's see how much distance a linear shaped charge can cut through a steel column.

That's it. If you don't cut a big square out of the steel column before you place the charge, that's about all the steel it can slice through.

 

[Corsair 115]

Didn't kamikazes also pack the nose of their planes with explosives?

Given this comment, I must presume you know little, if anything, about WWII aircraft. How exactly would the nose of the aircraft be packed with explosives when that's where the piston engine was located? Unless you are thinking of the Okha rocket-powered 'aircraft' (it was more primitive, piloted cruise missile than plane), which saw only very limited use late in the war (it's use was greatly hampered by the fact it had to be carried into striking range by twin-engined bombers, and these were easily shot down by USN fighter CAP).

How could you know how many and when they went off?

Wouldn't matter to the central point since any bomb is carried under (or, in the case of aircraft with a bomb bay such as the TBF Avenger or SB2C Helldiver, inside) the aircraft, at about the centre point of the aircraft's longitudinal axis. That is, not under or in the nose. Thus, it is the front of the aircraft which strikes first and penetrates; the bomb penetrates afterwards. Note also that, in regards to regular attacks conducted by dive bombers, they carried either armour-piercing or semi-armour-piercing bombs for attacks on warships. These types of bombs are designed to not detonate until after they penetrate the deck or hull of the target. This is to cause damage inside the target rather than on the surface of the target.

In this post, board member X calculate the kinetic energy involved in the jet impacts on each of the WTC towers. The north tower impact was the equivalent of 1,212 lbs. of TNT, the south tower impact 1,686 lbs. of TNT. The U.S. Mk 84 GP 2,000 lb. bomb has a warhead containing about 945 lbs. of high explosive. Thus, one could say that each of the WTC impacts was about the equivalent of each tower being hit by a 2,000 lb. bomb.

Do you think a 2,000 lb. bomb might cause some significant damage?

After all isn't the model of the plane used still debated to this day never mind what it was packing?

There is always some possibility of error in identifying the exact make of aircraft. That, however, does not change the central point.

 

[Corsair 115]

1) About aircraft and carrier. Those carriers serving in British navy had fully armored deck,so damage was usually far smaller.

On the other hand, that smaller damage would knock the British carrier out of combat since it was difficult to repair the torn up steel deck at sea. A U.S. carrier could replace the missing and/or damaged wooden deck and be back conducting flight operations within a few hours.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Nice video Ryan! Wow..you've got a really LONG title..what...do you print your business cards on poster board.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I wish everyone would get back to talking about Mackey's presentation.

Childlike touched on the political side of it and the Hardfire host. This is something to pursue on this topic.

Preconceived conclusions and beliefs are an enemy of science. Working backwards does no good. It's like art. A scientist like Mackey does the research and the work and if it's pure the real conclusions and truth will be revealed.

I still hear much opinion and speculation. Not much fact or truth as to how it relates to 9/11.

 

[T.A.M.]

I wish everyone would get back to talking about Mackey's presentation.

Childlike touched on the political side of it and the Hardfire host. This is something to pursue on this topic.

Preconceived conclusions and beliefs are an enemy of science. Working backwards does no good. It's like art. A scientist like Mackey does the research and the work and if it's pure the real conclusions and truth will be revealed.

I still hear much opinion and speculation. Not much fact or truth as to how it relates to 9/11.

perhaps the best post, and one of the few not rank with vitriol and hatred, that I have seen from you.

I hope it is not an isolated case/post.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

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.

How's this: USS Hinsdale: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/APA/APA-120_Hinsdale-kamikaze.gif

USS Sterett: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h98000/h98062.jpg

Kamikaze damage. Can you tell which one was a twin-engine plane?

 

[bonavada]

These types of bombs are designed to not detonate until after they penetrate the deck or hull of the target.

Aren't anti-ship missiles designed to have similar properties? I remember some slow motion footage I watched long ago of a missile penetrating the side of a warship, it was very impressive (it may have been an Exocet test) Had a little search around the usual places, I can't find it.

BV

 

[Corsair 115]

I still hear much opinion and speculation.

Yes, like yours postulating how the noses of kamikaze aircraft would be packed with explosives. To where then would the engine be moved?

 

[Klimax]

On the other hand, that smaller damage would knock the British carrier out of combat since it was difficult to repair the torn up steel deck at sea. A U.S. carrier could replace the missing and/or damaged wooden deck and be back conducting flight operations within a few hours.

I think it is reversed,that it was US carrier sent for months for repairs.

All it depends what type of damage it is.(What caused it,speed of cause,angle of cause and if bomb inside cause went off)

Given that US carrier had wood,which is liked by fire and aircraft has usually a lot of fuel,so type and magnitude of damage is significant.

Second,certain damage to plates could be repaired by overlaying by spare plates(IIRC).

 

[fezzic]

I think it is reversed,that it was US carrier sent for months for repairs.

All it depends what type of damage it is.(What caused it,speed of cause,angle of cause and if bomb inside cause went off)

Given that US carrier had wood,which is liked by fire and aircraft has usually a lot of fuel,so type and magnitude of damage is significant.

Second,certain damage to plates could be repaired by overlaying by spare plates(IIRC).

I recall once reading about British armored flight decks versus US unarmored flight decks. Each had its advantage and disadvantages it appeared.

For instance, the armoring of the flight deck resulted in less space on the storage deck below so US carriers could carry more aircraft. OTOH, the armoring did tend to provide more protection to the storage level below.

The US flight deck could be repaired more easily than the armored flght deck, assuming the damage did penetrate the deck. I don't know if putting a plate on the armored deck was such a good idea -- a bump of 1 or 2 inches, aside from the need to firmly attach the plate to the deck, might have bad effects on aircraft operations. In addition, the armoring of the flight deck made the flight deck part of the ship structure while the wooden flight deck was a part of the superstructure (I know they something like this was mentioned). Damage, such as warping due to fire effects, affected the whole ship structure whereas the US ships would not suffer to the same extent, given the same extent of a fire.

Of course, I only kind of read it and didn't take notes so I may have some of this wrong. So, I am just saying that armoring the flight deck may not have been all for the good (which I realize was not claimed) compared to not armoring the flight deck.

 

[dudalb]

On the other hand, that smaller damage would knock the British carrier out of combat since it was difficult to repair the torn up steel deck at sea. A U.S. carrier could replace the missing and/or damaged wooden deck and be back conducting flight operations within a few hours.

The US Navy main reason for Wooden landing decks was the weight issue. If you took on the additional weight of a armored deck, that would mean a severe cut in the number of planes carried by the carrier because of the weight issues involved. (a ship can only weight so much before severe ship handling issues arise). The US Navy felt...and most Historians..including British navy historians...agree that that more planes in the CAP above the carriers in the end would be better protection then an armored deck. The quicker repair was a sort of a bonus.