• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for Ryan Mackey

realcddeal said:
Those floors had two sets of 1/4" rebar grid in them and there were a number of trusses involved. Of course there would have been local buckling failures, but it would probably not have buckled the entire length of the floor. The real issue is what damage going through the length of the floor does to the plane. The plane would have been hitting the floor edge on, not just diving down through the thickness. It would have had to plow through the length of the concrete with two sets of light rebar in it and trusses with buried knuckles in the concrete. That would appear to have done much more reduction to the momentum than diving through the floor.
Click to expand...

Yet in all this inner structure and floor space, there would have been explosive charges set for the controlled demolition which didn't go off and didn't set the whole thing when the plane plowed through it.

How do you explain that?

How can you possibly argue about how the plane got through the building and not think of the controlled demolition charges which are supposed to be there, waiting to be ignited?

After all, you do suggest controlled demolition in your username. How does one rationalize such a paradox?
 
realcddeal said:
It is 2.2 feet, which when talking about a 16.5 foot diameter projectile, with an 8.25 foot radius, it is 26% of the radius. That would seem significant.

How many feet of difference is it between the 6 degrees of pitch and 10 degrees that you feel would make a difference in whether or not there would be significantly less damage to the plane? I am trying to understand the basis of that argument as the fuselage had a 16.5 foot diameter and material of the floors was less than 12 feet apart. Thus the fuselage cannot miss the floors no matter what the pitch angle, and the shearing of the long top and/or bottom of the fuselage would have had a significant impact on momentum. In fact, one would have to crunch the numbers but it would appear to be much worse than diving down through a floor, and if that is true then at some point more pitch angle would seem to help the less damage argument.
Click to expand...


Let me try one last time, since you're still not understanding me:

The roll axis of the plane does not go through the middle of the cabin.

The roll axis of the plane passes through the main spar, which is coaxial with the main deck.

Roll is an aerodynamic phenomenon. The passenger cabin is above the roll axis.

If the plane does a perfect roll while you're standing up in the aisle, your feet would barely move (except forward) and your head would describe a helix about two meters in radius.

The position error of impact is about +/- two feet anyway. Even if you were right, which you are not, this is within the margin of error.

You cannot think of the fuselage as a single, monolithic object, not at those impact speeds. The point, which should be very simple to grasp, is that the greater the downward pitch, the more energy gets expended against the floors. NIST's experiments varied the pitch angle and prove this. The "less severe" impacts actually cause more damage to the floors (model results) than the "more severe" impacts, even though the "more severe" impacts are also faster and involve a stronger airplane.

If you still don't understand this, you should probably just read NIST. I don't think I can make this any clearer.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Just read it. I don't accept that excuse of course. As we all know the buildings withstood the impacts. Apparently there are two cases that support the white paper's statement. Or do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

The buidlings DID withstood the impacts, just as predicted:

Leslie Roberston said:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.
Click to expand...

But later on in that interview:

Leslie Robertson said:
With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

Or are you suggesting that Engineers make arbitrary statements without evidence?

I find it rather interesting that NIST found no documents supporting the original February 1964 white paper analysis nor Les Robertson's study later in 1964.
Click to expand...

The paper you link to claims a "(Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour" and "would result in only local damage which could not collapse or substantial damage the building" (which it didn't btw), and NIST states that "investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis" therefor ruling out the 600mph claim.

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Not that it matters anyway, since, as shown above, the feul loads where not considered.

Summing this all up, I start to wonder what you tried to proof by linking to that document anyway?
 
Given that most posters on this forum are rationalists with varying degrees of technical expertise, what do dishonest, hopelessly ignorant and ineducable dunces like Swing Dangler, realcddeal, Lost Child, and others imagine they're accomplishing? They flaunt, over and over and over, their total lack of critical thinking skills and their shallow, error-riddled understanding of the subjects they rant about. They proclaim victories over their superiors that no one has ever witnessed. They expose themselves as charlatans, utter fools, or (most likely) a combination of both. What can their purpose be? How can getting repeatedly trounced by people who are much smarter and who know vastly more win converts to their evil cause?
 
realcddeal said:
You could have answered this question for yourself by learning what floors had aircraft impact damage in each tower and what floors the collapses initiated on.

The actual collapse floors, 82nd in the South Tower and 98th in the North Tower, had very little impact damage.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the fires and energy transmitted though the structure preclude the survival of explosives in the buildings.
The fires and energy transmitted though the structure were sufficient to trigger explosives, or render them inert and useless I can not see any surviving for long.
PS. I have actually preformed real world experiments on this and no explosive was able to survive the combination of transmitted energy and Fires as well as chemical reactions!
Also no credible evidence of explosives has been found!
Except for those few limited explosives that would and could have formed from reactions in the buildings!
 
pomeroo said:
What can their purpose be?
Click to expand...
IMO, it's to provide a sense of excitement and importance that their lives otherwise lack. "Look at all these people paying attention to me! I matter!"
 
Swing is a stand up guy, I've watched him kickin debunker butt over at JREF.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd like to see those threads to.

All I seen is Swing get crushed and then abandon the thread.
 
Gravy said:
IMO, it's to provide a sense of excitement and importance that their lives otherwise lack. "Look at all these people paying attention to me! I matter!"
Click to expand...


But, surely they notice that the attention they receive is negative. Their absurd beliefs get battered and they are made to look idiotic. Is this an acceptable trade-off to them?

Tell me if you agree with my overall assessment of the fantasy movement. I've never studied Child Psychology, but it has always seemed to me that those tests where the child has to determine which wooden block fits into the appropriate hole gauge thinking speed, as well as the ability to handle spatial relationships. The child who figures out quickly that the square peg doesn't go into the round hole is reckoned smarter than the child who takes longer. The point is, the test uses pegs and holes that are approximately the same size. The typical twoofer carries a block--his set of loony notions--that is ten times larger than the hole. He pounds away furiously, creating a thunderous racket, and even people who are not particularly bright are capable of pointing out that he can't possibly make it fit--it's obviously too big. In other words, we're not talking about speed of thought here. We're dealing with a problem of intelligence, to be sure, but more importantly, we're dealing with a deep-rooted problem relating to one's relationship with reality. When a brilliant scientist like R. Mackey shows specific errors in Griffin's critique of the NIST Report, he's showing why the square peg won't fit into the round hole. But fantasists are pounding away at a peg that is--again, obviously-- much, much larger than the hole. This is why they seem ineducable, impervious to correction. And this is why no amount of evidence matters to them. They are not merely wrong: they are obviously wrong. Is it, I wonder, a good reason to simply write them off as insane? Does it make everything we do here a waste of time?
 
Mr.Herbert said:
Swing Dagler claims Mackey is a liar?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread313448/pg6#pid3696352
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen those threads. There's one whole thread here about them, and another mention in teh Stundies Nomination discussion.

It's really a startling example of the quality of research one usually finds on the Internet. In that single thread, you have:

  • People complaining that I dared to tell them something about myself in my own, 100,000-word whitepaper
  • People shocked that I didn't include a disclaimer that my whitepaper was not an official NASA document (that disclaimer is on the freaking cover page)
  • People who believe the perimeter columns had the same strength at Floor 9 as Floor 110 -- even though I already told them the columns varied in both composition and web thickness, yet they somehow forgot the latter part, and are shocked to find 70 ksi steel at the 98th floor (at 1/4" thickness!)
  • At least one individual who regularly posts here at the JREF, yet for some reason decided he'd rather snipe at me over there, where I hardly ever read; this same individual posts information of a personal nature about me, which I might complain about, except he's wildly incorrect as usual :D
And as if that wasn't enough, those same people wonder why I don't rush off to sign up and post over there...

All I can do is attempt to educate. I take no responsibility for the quality of the students.
 
R.Mackey said:
Yeah, I've seen those threads. There's one whole thread here about them, and another mention in teh Stundies Nomination discussion.

It's really a startling example of the quality of research one usually finds on the Internet. In that single thread, you have:
  • People complaining that I dared to tell them something about myself in my own, 100,000-word whitepaper
  • People shocked that I didn't include a disclaimer that my whitepaper was not an official NASA document (that disclaimer is on the freaking cover page)
  • People who believe the perimeter columns had the same strength at Floor 9 as Floor 110 -- even though I already told them the columns varied in both composition and web thickness, yet they somehow forgot the latter part, and are shocked to find 70 ksi steel at the 98th floor (at 1/4" thickness!)
  • At least one individual who regularly posts here at the JREF, yet for some reason decided he'd rather snipe at me over there, where I hardly ever read; this same individual posts information of a personal nature about me, which I might complain about, except he's wildly incorrect as usual :D
And as if that wasn't enough, those same people wonder why I don't rush off to sign up and post over there...

All I can do is attempt to educate. I take no responsibility for the quality of the students.
Click to expand...


What do you think of my suspicion that you're trying to explain why the square peg won't fit into the round hole to people who are attempting to pass a log through the eye of a needle?
 
pomeroo said:
Given that most posters on this forum are rationalists with varying degrees of technical expertise, what do dishonest, hopelessly ignorant and ineducable dunces like Swing Dangler, realcddeal, Lost Child, and others imagine they're accomplishing? They flaunt, over and over and over, their total lack of critical thinking skills and their shallow, error-riddled understanding of the subjects they rant about. They proclaim victories over their superiors that no one has ever witnessed. They expose themselves as charlatans, utter fools, or (most likely) a combination of both. What can their purpose be? How can getting repeatedly trounced by people who are much smarter and who know vastly more win converts to their evil cause?
Click to expand...

Your point or was that just for your scrapbook?

MM
 
Suspicion is as suspicion does.

I honestly had no illusions that people deeply wedded to the conspiracy theories would even read it, let alone make a concerted attempt to understand it. They may, or they may not. Those who approach the subject rationally, however, will understand what I'm saying, and will also appreciate the significance of the fact that Dr. Griffin will not or cannot respond.

realcddeal, for instance, asked me some perfectly rational questions. Naive questions, mind you, given that the answers to all of those are in the NIST reports themselves, but reasonable questions. He also seems satisfied with my answer. So some people are getting it.
 
R.Mackey said:
Suspicion is as suspicion does.

I honestly had no illusions that people deeply wedded to the conspiracy theories would even read it, let alone make a concerted attempt to understand it. They may, or they may not. Those who approach the subject rationally, however, will understand what I'm saying, and will also appreciate the significance of the fact that Dr. Griffin will not or cannot respond.

realcddeal, for instance, asked me some perfectly rational questions. Naive questions, mind you, given that the answers to all of those are in the NIST reports themselves, but reasonable questions. He also seems satisfied with my answer. So some people are getting it.
Click to expand...

Getting it?

Or just tired of arguing NIST rhetoric with someone who feels his employer graces him with credibility that is unproven.

MM
 
R.Mackey said:
Suspicion is as suspicion does.

I honestly had no illusions that people deeply wedded to the conspiracy theories would even read it, let alone make a concerted attempt to understand it. They may, or they may not. Those who approach the subject rationally, however, will understand what I'm saying, and will also appreciate the significance of the fact that Dr. Griffin will not or cannot respond.

realcddeal, for instance, asked me some perfectly rational questions. Naive questions, mind you, given that the answers to all of those are in the NIST reports themselves, but reasonable questions. He also seems satisfied with my answer. So some people are getting it.
Click to expand...


I mentioned on the Conspiracy Smasher blog that Griffin reacted to your paper by reneging on an agreement to discuss his most recent book. One cretin objected to my posting of a link to your paper by stating that you work for the people who he accuses, so why would he read anything you write. I replied that his masters never specifically accuse NASA of anything except faking the moon landings, and although he is far too unintelligent to comprehend your paper, the important thing is that Griffin read it and ran out the door.
 
Miragememories said:
Getting it?

Or just tired of arguing NIST rhetoric with someone who feels his employer graces him with credibility that is unproven.

MM
Click to expand...



And what specific errors have conspiracy liars found in Mackey's work? Why do you suppose they can't find any?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom