Question for Ryan Mackey

[pomeroo]

Certainly, NASA has made mistakes. I doubt R.Mackey would argue that.

However, please show me evidence of "history" arguing that NASA regularly hired uncredentialed, not credible people.

Can we pause for a moment to acknowledge the derailment of this thread? The topic is, "Question for Ryan Mackey." I have asked MM, with predictable lack of success, to show us a few errors in Mackey's paper. We will never see any. For reasons most of us understand very well, we are blathering about Mackey's credentials, not the content of his whitepaper. Personally, that someone is a rocket scientist suggests to me that he is qualified to discuss physics, but what do I know? If everyone asks MM to put down his trusty shovel and present an actual error made by Mackey, he will go away.

 

[R.Mackey]

Substantiate???

Need I point to all the references from your adoring group of sycophants here in JREF Ryan?

Come on man, I don't question your intelligence so please don't waste your time playing me for a fool!

MM

This is not substantiation for your claim, which is that I believe my employer gives me unwarranted credibility.

I believe no such thing, and I am on record stating the exact opposite.

Now, for the last time, substantiate your claim, or else you have made an unsupported personal attack on a JREF Forum poster, in a post on the JREF Forum.

 

[LashL]

Thank you for that important correction C.

I'm sure you eliminated a great deal of confusion and have made the world a better place as a result.

MM

Pointing out hypocrisy is always a useful exercise that does, indeed, make the world a better place.

The broader message, which I (somewhat over-optimistically) hoped you might comprehend without me having to spell it out for you explicitly, is that throwing pebbles in your little glass cubicle is not exactly a brilliant strategy.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

This is not substantiation for your claim, which is that I believe my employer gives me unwarranted credibility.

I believe no such thing, and I am on record stating the exact opposite.

Now, for the last time, substantiate your claim, or else you have made an unsupported personal attack on a JREF Forum poster, in a post on the JREF Forum.

Agree. Let's get back to that.

Substantiate your claim, MM.

 

[LashL]

Agree. Let's get back to that.

Substantiate your claim, MM.

Also agreed, and my apologies for my contribution to the derail regarding mirage's hypocrisy.

Substantiate your claim, mirage.

 

[Newtons Bit]

This is not substantiation for your claim, which is that I believe my employer gives me unwarranted credibility.

I believe no such thing, and I am on record stating the exact opposite.

Now, for the last time, substantiate your claim, or else you have made an unsupported personal attack on a JREF Forum poster, in a post on the JREF Forum.

I concur. The quality of our work (debunking wise) should be based solely on the work itself, not on some appeal to authority based on our education or employment.

 

[beachnut]

So 600 mph's is slow to you? Lordy, I hope I never have to see your designs in reality. And what does that say about the "engineers" who educated you?
Lets examine your statement based upon the Engineers at NIST and their statements about the speed of the plane the towers were designed to withstand. Stop promoting lies, Beachnut. I just ripped your comment apart based upon basic research and NIST!

OMG, NIST Is wrong.

Your are wrong too. Gee, one second you are saying NIST is wrong when they are right, and the next you are saying they are right when they are wrong.

I am right on the 600 mph being bogus. Your bogus 600 mph WTC tower survival from fueled aircraft is bogus. Did I say bogus. Yes NIST has the to system answer wrong. I mean the WTC can not survive an impact of a 600 mph jet full of fuel.

The design impact for the WTC was a low fuel, low speed 707, lost in the fog trying to land. You know, lading gear down, flaps down, 180 mph. You are wrong because you believe hearsay of 9/11 truth and the error in NIST. If you would read NIST for understanding you would understand you have HEARSAY. Let me explain in my next post. I would not have to waste my time explaining to you if you would use comprehension when you read! Plus multiple sources help.

Funny, if you were to read the NIST entries about 600 mph, and understood energy, and engineering, you could see clearly how a 600 mph impact does not meet the design criteria mentioned when the make the ERROR of 600 mph.

Gee, the top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, how do you get 600 mph for a plane lost in the fog. And the top speed with flaps is below 200 KIAS or slower dependign on the amout of flaps down. Thank your parents for me, if you paid USA taxes, I was sent to pilot training in supersonic trainers with your tax dollars and I understand flying, or enough so reheat and that marine aviator can correct me.

But later I will show you how NIST made an error. You may not understand since you are not an engineer. To go back to the design. What do you think they thought the risk from aircraft was? I cheated, they told me they checked the design for an impact of a slow speed jet, the biggest at the time, was a 707. The slow speed is due to the fact no planes are near the WTC when they fly fast. The 707 can only do 355 KCAS at 700 feet without eventual damage, and that is the top speed based on a 707 design. If you follow the 350 KCAS to 27,000 feet or so you can pick up .9 MACH, and begin to see 600 mph when you are cruising above 25,000 feet. The reason 250 KIAS is below 10,000 feet is a speed limit for safety since the smaller planes are slower.

Since you can not tell me why a 707 would be doing 600 mph into the WTC and why the engineers planned on 600 mph. I will have to stick with what the engineers really designed an aircraft impact for! Slow speed, use 180 mph and you can see; the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater, and this is the reason the WTC failed. The WTC could not handle an aircraft impact and all the fuel. Thus from a systems engineering point of view the WTC failed due to an aircraft impacts and all the phenomenon associated with that event.

So we have 7 to 11 times the energy on 9/11 over the impact design.

BTW, NIST is not really wrong, YOU are wrong; again. Why are you alwasy wrong?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nope, there was no rebar in the lightweight concrete floor. It was simply concrete over the corrugated steel pan, supported by trusses.

It was a floor, not a highway.

I also thought there was rebar only in areas such as the parking garages but I have subsequently learned differently in the past few months. See the floor decks prepared by NIST for the floor assembly fire testing. They describe the floors as having two sets of .230 dia." rebar in a 4" x 10" grid that is called welded wire fabric. There is also 1/2" rebar around the perimeter.

They were not testing parking garage floor samples in those fire tests. You need to look at the NIST report for this information.

Go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf and then page 29 for the photo of the welded wire fabric installed in the floor assembly before the concrete was poured. Discussion of the welded wire fabric in the floor assembly construction is on page 28. Appendix A contains more specifics about the welded wire fabric.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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?

Who do you think you are calling dishonest there Mr. Wieck? You have no basis for that and I think you also need to go play with others with the same ad hominem brain size you have. I am amazed that you make posts like this with nothing to back up your rants.

 

[beachnut]

I also thought there was rebar only in areas such as the parking garages but I have subsequently learned differently in the past few months. See the floor decks prepared by NIST for the floor assembly fire testing. They describe the floors as having two sets of 1/4" rebar in a 4" x 10" grid that is called welded wire fabric. There is also 1/2" rebar around the perimeter.

They were not testing parking garage floor samples in those fire tests.

You need to look at the NIST report for this information.

One truther wants the weight to be less the nest wants the floors to be stronger all to prove Jones made up thermite to save us from Bush?

It will be neat when 9/11 truth learns how to do engineering and physics.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

One truther wants the weight to be less the nest wants the floors to be stronger all to prove Jones made up thermite to save us from Bush?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/124474626583dcee82.jpg[/qimg]
It will be neat when 9/11 truth learns how to do engineering and physics.

Here you go since you apparently don't believe there was rebar in the upper floors.

Go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf and then page 29.

 

[beachnut]

Hey, beachnut, did you work in the Bldg 145/146 complex where the LAMARS (Large Amplitude Multi-Mode Aerospace Research Simulator) was located?

Real close. I worked with Dr John Reising, I was the token engineer/pilot. They must of helped me, I made Major when I left in 85. Got my MSEE up the hill, worked with Dr Kabrisky. Moved down with the human factors guys and tried to stay out of trouble. Tons of cool projects to work on all over. Amzaing how many things you could work on if you want to.

 

[beachnut]

Here you go since you apparently don't believe there was rebar in the upper floors.

Go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf and then page 29.

There is rebar like connections in the support. But the floors were light weight concrete and no matter how strong you make the floors, you still have 2066 pounds of TNT energy to disapate; as seen on 9/11. I think the energy of impact was enough to cut through most the columns. But the columns were not all lined up.

I find your pathetic efforts very disrespectful for all 9/11 victims. Is this the best you can do? Pathetic. You need to get better now if you want to make a real difference, but so far you are on the side of 9/11 liars, and you do not seem to be helping them or the truth.

I never said there was rebar or not, but if you add too much rebar old 9/11 truth petition signer will have to add weight to support your idiotic thermite ideas. You truthers need to get a real story that you all can support. Not some nut case ideas like thermite and other total nonsecnse only idiots can believe in. Make up something that a real engineer can beleive. So far you appear to like the bs part of 9/11 and you can not even correct your patheticlly error riddent paper, or take out the political tripe in it.

 

[Corsair 115]

So 600 mph's is slow to you? Lordy, I hope I never have to see your designs in reality. And what does that say about the "engineers" who educated you?

Now if you would just answer the question as to why the folks designing the WTC towers in the 1960s would envision a scenario involving a Boeing 707 flying at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of 1,000 feet. What on earth prompted them to design for such a fantastically unlikely scenario? You do realize that passengers jets don't routinely fly at 600 mph at such altitudes, don't you?

 

[R.Mackey]

I also thought there was rebar only in areas such as the parking garages but I have subsequently learned differently in the past few months. See the floor decks prepared by NIST for the floor assembly fire testing. They describe the floors as having two sets of .230 dia." rebar in a 4" x 10" grid that is called welded wire fabric. There is also 1/2" rebar around the perimeter.

I just want to duck back in (pending Miragememories' apology) and remark that realcddeal is correct. The concrete floor decks were reinforced with welded wire fabric. They also gained some composite action reinforcement by virtue of being poured around the upper knuckles of the floor trusses.

The NIST report is actually where I learned the real name for "welded wire fabric." See, something for everyone!

 

[pomeroo]

Who do you think you are calling dishonest there Mr. Wieck? You have no basis for that and I think you also need to go play with others with the same ad hominem brain size you have. I am amazed that you make posts like this with nothing to back up your rants.

This question of dishonesty as opposed to ignorance keeps coming up. There are many subjects I know little about. If I were to venture an opinion on one of them, very probably I'd make mistakes. Now, if my mistakes were shown to me and corrected by someone who knew more than I do, I would be learning something. If I continued to state those erroneous opinions as truth, I'd be intellectually dishonest because I'd know better. That's my problem with you guys. You present your opinions, which is fine. People who know more than you explain how you're going wrong. But there is never any progress, never any acknowledgement that something you've claimed doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny. You write that I don't support my "rants." Point to an instance where a fantasist has backed off a preposterous claim that is critical to his mythos (yes, I do recall Ace Baker dropping some nonsense about shadows on a building, but it wasn't his hobby horse). Please, if I'm being unfair, show me what I'm missing.

 

[beachnut]

unable to locate any documentation

Now if you would just answer the question as to why the folks designing the WTC towers in the 1960s would envision a scenario involving a Boeing 707 flying at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of 1,000 feet. What on earth prompted them to design for such a fantastically unlikely scenario? You do realize that passengers jets don't routinely fly at 600 mph at such altitudes, don't you?

For the WTC to survive a 600 mph hit with fuel, the WTC would have to be 14.19 times stronger. Fire control systems and escapes systems would have to be factored in. I guess Swing can not take the time to read what NIST said and learn it does not mean anything. And there is no support for the design of a 600 mph impact survival.

"such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact"

The real design for a slow speed lost in the fog low fuel, meets what the people remember as cited above. "only local damage"!

I will repeat for those who want to see what Swing is trying to twist into nothing. I can not even figure out what Swing's point is or what he thinks it means.

From NIST NCSTAR 1, 5.3.2 Aircraft Impact

The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not now currently, required that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the I pact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." (letter with an attachment dated November 13, 2003, from John R. Dragonette (Retied Project Administrator, Physical Facilities Division, World Trade Department) to Saroj Bhol (Engineering Department, PANYNJ). Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been limited.

NIST was discussing history; they found someone saying 600 mph and not source. I have found slow speed, and the real source, and can back it up with the intent that the engineers stated and told NIST. What is Swing's point. The fact is the building could handle multiple 180 mph impacts of 707 class aircraft! The real design of a slow speed aircraft meets the objective!

"… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Even engineers then could calculate energy and make good estimate of damage. A 600 mph impact would not topple the WTC, but it would cause fatal damage!. It is dumb to take the 600 mph figure and try to use it in 9/11 truth fashion of proof of explosives or some other fact less charge by the irrational truthers.

 

[1337m4n]

OMG, NIST Is wrong.

Your are wrong too. Gee, one second you are saying NIST is wrong when they are right, and the next you are saying they are right when they are wrong.

I am right on the 600 mph being bogus. Your bogus 600 mph WTC tower survival from fueled aircraft is bogus. Did I say bogus. Yes NIST has the to system answer wrong. I mean the WTC can not survive an impact of a 600 mph jet full of fuel.

The design impact for the WTC was a low fuel, low speed 707, lost in the fog trying to land. You know, lading gear down, flaps down, 180 mph. You are wrong because you believe hearsay of 9/11 truth and the error in NIST. If you would read NIST for understanding you would understand you have HEARSAY. Let me explain in my next post. I would not have to waste my time explaining to you if you would use comprehension when you read! Plus multiple sources help.

Funny, if you were to read the NIST entries about 600 mph, and understood energy, and engineering, you could see clearly how a 600 mph impact does not meet the design criteria mentioned when the make the ERROR of 600 mph.

Gee, the top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, how do you get 600 mph for a plane lost in the fog. And the top speed with flaps is below 200 KIAS or slower dependign on the amout of flaps down. Thank your parents for me, if you paid USA taxes, I was sent to pilot training in supersonic trainers with your tax dollars and I understand flying, or enough so reheat and that marine aviator can correct me.

But later I will show you how NIST made an error. You may not understand since you are not an engineer. To go back to the design. What do you think they thought the risk from aircraft was? I cheated, they told me they checked the design for an impact of a slow speed jet, the biggest at the time, was a 707. The slow speed is due to the fact no planes are near the WTC when they fly fast. The 707 can only do 355 KCAS at 700 feet without eventual damage, and that is the top speed based on a 707 design. If you follow the 350 KCAS to 27,000 feet or so you can pick up .9 MACH, and begin to see 600 mph when you are cruising above 25,000 feet. The reason 250 KIAS is below 10,000 feet is a speed limit for safety since the smaller planes are slower.

Since you can not tell me why a 707 would be doing 600 mph into the WTC and why the engineers planned on 600 mph. I will have to stick with what the engineers really designed an aircraft impact for! Slow speed, use 180 mph and you can see; the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater, and this is the reason the WTC failed. The WTC could not handle an aircraft impact and all the fuel. Thus from a systems engineering point of view the WTC failed due to an aircraft impacts and all the phenomenon associated with that event.

So we have 7 to 11 times the energy on 9/11 over the impact design.

BTW, NIST is not really wrong, YOU are wrong; again. Why are you alwasy wrong?

Uh-oh...you admitted that the NIST report isn't 100% perfect. Now somebody's going to claim that's irrefutable proof 9/11 is an inside job!

 

[Swing Dangler]

OMG, NIST Is wrong.

Your are wrong too. Gee, one second you are saying NIST is wrong when they are right, and the next you are saying they are right when they are wrong.

No you said that NIST was wrong in your comment.

I am right on the 600 mph being bogus. Your bogus 600 mph WTC tower survival from fueled aircraft is bogus. Did I say bogus. Yes NIST has the to system answer wrong. I mean the WTC can not survive an impact of a 600 mph jet full of fuel.

I'm wrong? And now NIST is wrong. Have you contacted NIST informing them of their error? Have they acknowledged the error your accusing them of? Isn't it your duty to contact them to inform them of their error?

My information comes from NIST! Where does your data come from? Les Robertson whose data can't be confirmed?

The design impact for the WTC was a low fuel, low speed 707, lost in the fog trying to land. You know, lading gear down, flaps down, 180 mph. You are wrong because you believe hearsay of 9/11 truth and the error in NIST. If you would read NIST for understanding you would understand you have HEARSAY. Let me explain in my next post. I would not have to waste my time explaining to you if you would use comprehension when you read! Plus multiple sources help.

Can you cite this information from the NIST report, please?

Funny, if you were to read the NIST entries about 600 mph, and understood energy, and engineering, you could see clearly how a 600 mph impact does not meet the design criteria mentioned when the make the ERROR of 600 mph.

Are you stating NIST is wrong about the 600mph? Or are you stating the engineers in 1960's just made those numbers up and slapped them in their white paper? Or were the laws of physics and engineering different in the 1960's?

Gee, the top speed below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, how do you get 600 mph for a plane lost in the fog. And the top speed with flaps is below 200 KIAS or slower dependign on the amout of flaps down. Thank your parents for me, if you paid USA taxes, I was sent to pilot training in supersonic trainers with your tax dollars and I understand flying, or enough so reheat and that marine aviator can correct me.

]
Oh I see, so pilots, planes, structural engineers, and physics always obey FAR 91.117 regulations. Do mechanical malfunctions, pilot errors, and hijackers obey flight regulations?

Or are you stating engineers design buildings based upon flight regulations?

But later I will show you how NIST made an error. You may not understand since you are not an engineer. To go back to the design. What do you think they thought the risk from aircraft was? I cheated, they told me they checked the design for an impact of a slow speed jet, the biggest at the time, was a 707. The slow speed is due to the fact no planes are near the WTC when they fly fast. The 707 can only do 355 KCAS at 700 feet without eventual damage, and that is the top speed based on a 707 design. If you follow the 350 KCAS to 27,000 feet or so you can pick up .9 MACH, and begin to see 600 mph when you are cruising above 25,000 feet. The reason 250 KIAS is below 10,000 feet is a speed limit for safety since the smaller planes are slower.

Are you saying a plane can not fly above 600 mph below 10,000 feet?
Oh and you are wrong. The cruising speed of a Boeing 707-340 is 607mph.

Since you can not tell me why a 707 would be doing 600 mph into the WTC and why the engineers planned on 600 mph. I will have to stick with what the engineers really designed an aircraft impact for! Slow speed, use 180 mph and you can see; the impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 11 times greater, and this is the reason the WTC failed. The WTC could not handle an aircraft impact and all the fuel. Thus from a systems engineering point of view the WTC failed due to an aircraft impacts and all the phenomenon associated with that event.

This answer is for Corsair as well...
I may be wrong but wouldn't engineers, using the 600 mph figure, design their building to withstand the worst case scenario possible in an air disaster at the time-a 707 at that cruising speed of 607 mph?
I believe, and structural engineers can correct me if I'm wrong, that that is being ultra-conservative in the design of the building for safety's sake of course.

Would you design a building based upon the lowest legal speed possible or the highest speed the plane could reach?

You realize then that the engineers designed their building for the slow speed plane, it would not be an ultra conservative design, which contradicts Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that designed the Twin Towers.
Are you prepared to disagree with the firm that designed the Towers?

You realize that what your stating is that a plane that reaches 181 mph's+ and collides with the Twin Towers would have resulted in the global collapse of the building.

BTW, NIST is not really wrong, YOU are wrong; again. Why are you alwasy wrong?

NIST made an error...NIST is not really wrong...which is it Beachnut? Heck the way you write, I think your suffering from altitude sickness.

 

[Corsair 115]

I'll ask again:

Swing, now if you would just answer the question as to why the folks designing the WTC towers in the 1960s would envision a scenario involving a Boeing 707 flying at 600 miles per hour at an altitude of 1,000 feet. What on earth prompted them to design for such a fantastically unlikely scenario? You do realize that passengers jets don't routinely fly at 600 mph at such altitudes, don't you?