ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ryan mackey , wtc , flight 175 , 911 conspiracy theory , wtc2

Reply
Old 10th November 2007, 08:49 PM   #1
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Question for Ryan Mackey

Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.

The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?

There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?

I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 09:04 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 08:59 PM   #2
Blender Head
Muse
 
Blender Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 679
The nose of Fl. 175 exited the South Tower?
Blender Head is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:01 PM   #3
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Blender Head View Post
The nose of Fl. 175 exited the South Tower?
Yep, and then it flew on to Cleveland.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:04 PM   #4
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
The nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exited the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?
Let me take a stab at this: because it's an absurd idea about an impossibility that's promoted by crackpots like Killtown and Ace Baker.

You may as well ask why Ryan Mackey doesn't address the satanic faces that the NWO introduced into the smoke of the Twin Towers, or the pterodactyls and orbs seen there on 9/11.

You say you're a mechanical engineer, eh, Mr. Szamboti? You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of how the physical world works.

ETA: "free space area." Oh, mama!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 10th November 2007 at 09:08 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:05 PM   #5
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.
Not avoid completely, but less energy was expended against the slabs, yes.

Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?
You need to read NIST more carefully. "Nominally 8 degrees" is what NIST shows in Table 7-3 of NCSTAR1-2B, or more correctly 8 +/- 4 degrees, but this is only the result after video analysis. NIST's refined estimate, which also includes analysis of the exterior damage, revises that figure to 6 +/- 2 degrees, as shown in Table 7-4 on Page 170 of NCSTAR1-2B. You should quote the refined figures, not the video-only figures.

Furthermore, the case analysis suggests the more severe impact case is correct, and this biases us towards even flatter impact angles.

Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
The nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exited the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?
Because it isn't true. The heading of the aircraft meant it flew through a corner of the core structure. Yes, it went through a sixty-foot wide free space area, but only after sawing off the corner. It actually hit, and was estimated to have destroyed, more core columns than UA11 did, since UA11 hit the face squarely, with greater pitch angle, and at slower speed.

The free space has nothing to do with how many columns were affected. It's simple geometry.

Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.
Because that, too, is irrelevant in terms of core damage.

NIST estimated that wing segments, whether full of fuel or not, would not be sufficient in themselves to destroy an average core column (after contact with the perimeter). Only the fuselage or engines would. From the core's perspective, therefore, the wings only contribute to overall blast effect, which does load the core but is entirely secondary compared to the fuselage impact.

As a result, core damage is insensitive to roll angle. The roll angle is important for understanding ventilation, fire spread, and fuel dispersion, but really doesn't do anything for the core.

I would suggest you read the NIST report carefully, particularly NCSTAR1-2B, since all of your questions reflect confusion about NIST's results.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 10th November 2007 at 09:12 PM. Reason: Clarified wing segment impact estimate
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:10 PM   #6
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Ryan,

In your paper "On Debunking 911 Debunking" you make the statement that one of the reasons the damage to the South Tower core was greater was that the aircraft was only pitched down 6 degrees at impact vs. the 10 degree downward pitch angle of the North Tower aircraft at impact, and that this allowed it to avoid contact with a floor slab.

The NIST report says the downward pitch angle of the South Tower aircraft was nominally 8 degrees. Where did you get the 6 degrees from?
In figures E-23 and E-24 of NCSTAR1-2 (pp. lxxi-lxxii, pdf 73-74), the angles at impact are given as 10.6 degrees for Flight 11 and 6 degrees for Flight 175.

Quote:
There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?
Your interpretations of these videos is in error. The nose of flight 175 most assuredly was torn to shreds on impact.

Quote:
I am also wondering why you don't mention the significant nominal South Tower aircraft roll angle of 38 degrees which caused the wings of the aircraft to come into contact with at least five floor slabs. This would have assuredly limited the ability of the wings to cause damage to the core and the steep angle would keep wing parts from hitting any one floor in a concentrated way.
The wings as a whole very likely made no contact at all with any part of the interior. The wings as shredded mass with high velocity most certainly did.

ETA: RMackey!

Last edited by boloboffin; 10th November 2007 at 09:11 PM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:13 PM   #7
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:15 PM   #8
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.
I know, I know. I'm laughing on this end.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:15 PM   #9
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Let me take a stab at this: because it's an absurd idea about an impossibility that's promoted by crackpots like Killtown and Ace Baker.

You may as well ask why Ryan Mackey doesn't address the satanic faces that the NWO introduced into the smoke of the Twin Towers, or the pterodactyls and orbs seen there on 9/11.

You say you're a mechanical engineer, eh, Mr. Szamboti? You don't seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of how the physical world works.

ETA: "free space area." Oh, mama!

Mark, you really should go play with someone of your own ad hominem brain size. Ryan doesn't dispute the free space yet you act like it is a big deal.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:20 PM   #10
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
well, he did ask me by name... But thanks for the backup.

You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 09:20 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:28 PM   #11
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?
I don't use the word "minimal." But there was less.

The momentum vector of the aircraft is what matters. In the case of UA11, even if we assume the aircraft had no material strength at all, more of it would have contacted a floor slab than AA175. Because of the violence of impact, while material strength is a factor, damage is still dominated by momentum. The plane can only absorb so much energy as it is destroyed into chunks, but those chunks are still going somewhere.

The outer skin of the fuselage is relatively weak, particularly in shear. It's relatively easy to dent or crush that fuselage upon entry. At top and bottom, whether the fuselage gets dented, peeled, or fragmented away by contact with floor slabs, we're still not dissipating much momentum.

What would matter, however, would be where the main spar and main deck of the aircraft impacted. Here the aircraft is strongest and most massive. If we replayed the collision of AA175, varying the exact point of impact up and down a couple of feet, such that the main deck directly hit or missed a floor slab, we would probably get noticeably different results.

Having said that, the diameter of the aircraft (and roll angle) means that the main deck can hit at most one floor slab. All of the NIST cases predict heavy damage to the "middle" slab. What I'm saying is that, had AA175's main deck (and landing gear, landing gear supports, main fuel tank, main beams, RAT, etc.) actually missed the floor slabs completely, we'd probably have seen even heavier damage to the core of WTC2.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 10th November 2007 at 09:28 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:30 PM   #12
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
You are right, I did ask you. I am satisfied with your answer. NIST did their angle refinement to match the damage and went away from the video analysis. That was a judgement call.

I do have another comment to make concerning the fuselage. Since it is 16.5 feet in diameter on a Boeing 767-200ER and the floors of the WTC Towers were 12 feet center to center it was essentially impossible for the fuselage to not have heavy contact with the floor slabs. Do you really believe it is appropriate to make the comment that there was minimal floor slab contact?
Bofors, welcome back.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:31 PM   #13
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
realcddeal is not bofors. He is Tony Szamboti.

We need to print up some score cards.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:35 PM   #14
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Mark, you really should go play with someone of your own ad hominem brain size. Ryan doesn't dispute the free space yet you act like it is a big deal.
208 feet of floor slab, floor trusses, ductwork, lighting, cables, interior partitions, furnishings, human beings, and office equipment and supplies do not comprise "free space."

Still think the nose of flight 175 came out the far side of the building, after penetrating the exterior columns in two walls and passing through that "free space," Tony? Or would you like to revise your position?

Or perhaps you'd like to explain through which of these holes the nose passed?


The reason for my derision, Tony, is that you still refuse to read the NIST report, although I have asked you time and time again to do so. Capisce?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 10th November 2007 at 09:44 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:37 PM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
not too smart to say this nose stuff

Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building, after going through the sixty foot wide free space area of the east side of the South Tower, which would indicate it did not hit many core columns. I don't see where you consider this feature. Why don't you?
NO! The nose did not exit the building.

The nose cone of Boeing aircraft is fiberglass! It was crushed on impact; there may of been a bright flash due to the RADAR, there is a weather RADAR behind the fiberglass nose cone. The RADAR is not shaped like a NOSE. The fiberglass was destroyed by the glass and alumni nun siding, then the RADAR smashed what was left of the FIBERGLASS as it hit.

This single idiotic statement
Quote:
There are videos showing the nose of the South Tower aircraft fuselage exiting the opposite side of the building
negates all your education.


This statement is indicative of all your 9/11 work. False junk made up to support the worn out lies of 9/11 truth.

Originally Posted by Bell View Post
Yep, and then it flew on to Cleveland.
I can't believe what he said...

Last edited by beachnut; 10th November 2007 at 09:43 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:40 PM   #16
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
realcddeal is not bofors. He is Tony Szamboti.

We need to print up some score cards.
I thought he was Bofors. Bofors showed up when Tony left after his paper was shown to be made up of false information. I thought tony had changed his name to Bofors. Sorry. But after seeing the nose coming out of the building, I can see even Bofors may not be that capable of making a real stupid statement.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:40 PM   #17
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I don't use the word "minimal." But there was less.

The momentum vector of the aircraft is what matters. In the case of UA11, even if we assume the aircraft had no material strength at all, more of it would have contacted a floor slab than AA175. Because of the violence of impact, while material strength is a factor, damage is still dominated by momentum. The plane can only absorb so much energy as it is destroyed into chunks, but those chunks are still going somewhere.

The outer skin of the fuselage is relatively weak, particularly in shear. It's relatively easy to dent or crush that fuselage upon entry. At top and bottom, whether the fuselage gets dented, peeled, or fragmented away by contact with floor slabs, we're still not dissipating much momentum.

What would matter, however, would be where the main spar and main deck of the aircraft impacted. Here the aircraft is strongest and most massive. If we replayed the collision of AA175, varying the exact point of impact up and down a couple of feet, such that the main deck directly hit or missed a floor slab, we would probably get noticeably different results.

Having said that, the diameter of the aircraft (and roll angle) means that the main deck can hit at most one floor slab. All of the NIST cases predict heavy damage to the "middle" slab. What I'm saying is that, had AA175's main deck (and landing gear, landing gear supports, main fuel tank, main beams, RAT, etc.) actually missed the floor slabs completely, we'd probably have seen even heavier damage to the core of WTC2.
Since the damage to the core is not seen it is strictly a judgement call and I understand that is what you are doing.

However, since the aircraft was rolled at 38 degrees with the left wing down, the main deck of the fusealge would have been to the east and further away from the core. Did you consider that?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:44 PM   #18
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Since the damage to the core is not seen it is strictly a judgement call and I understand that is what you are doing.

However, since the aircraft was rolled at 38 degrees with the left wing down, the main deck of the fusealge would have been to the east and further away from the core. Did you consider that?
I am largely speaking hypothetically, yes, but it's difficult to imagine a different mechanism at impact.

The aircraft center of mass and center of pressure will line up with the main deck, not the center of area of the fuselage. Roll will therefore not move this to either side. Even if this was not true, we'd be talking about a translation of only a few inches. I fail to see how the roll angle introduces any problems with the impact scenario modeled by NIST.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:46 PM   #19
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
NO! The nose did not exit the building.

The nose cone of Boeing aircraft is fiberglass! It was crushed on impact; there may of been a bright flash due to the RADAR, there is a weather RADAR behind the fiberglass nose cone. The RADAR is not shaped like a NOSE. The fiberglass was destroyed by the glass and alumni nun siding, then the RADAR smashed what was left of the FIBERGLASS as it hit.

This single idiotic statement negates all your education.

This statement is indicative of all your 9/11 work. False junk made up to support the worn out lies of 9/11 truth.
I know the radome on the nose is fiberglass to allow the radar to see through it.

By nose I did not mean the actual radome. It should have been obvious. How about part of the fuselage can be seen exiting the opposite side of the building in video. Is that better for you?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:49 PM   #20
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I can't believe what he said...
Beachnut, got up on the wrong side of bed? You seem aggitated today.
My post was a shot at the troofers "UA93 landed at Cleveland" claim.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:58 PM   #21
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
208 feet of floor slab, floor trusses, ductwork, lighting, cables, interior partitions, furnishings, human beings, and office equipment and supplies do not comprise "free space."

Still think the nose of flight 175 came out the far side of the building, after penetrating the exterior columns in two walls and passing through that "free space," Tony? Or would you like to revise your position?

Or perhaps you'd like to explain through which of these holes the nose passed?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6885313f1a.jpg

The reason for my derision, Tony, is that you still refuse to read the NIST report, although I have asked you time and time again to do so. Capisce?

If it isn't part of the fuselage then it is blast material from parts of the fuselage. The photo you show does not refute that. The point is that parts of the plane seem to have made it to the opposite side of the building and the trajectory of UAL Flight 175 on impact supports that notion as it would have a relatively clear path across the 60 foot wide no column office space area on the east side of the tower.

I have read the NIST report Mark. You just say that with no basis. You don't point to specifics and it seems you are doing that for a reason. Did you take note how Ryan showed examples of where he got his information? That is how a debate should take place.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 10:01 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:58 PM   #22
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
I know the radome on the nose is fiberglass to allow the radar to see through it.

By nose I did not mean the actual radome. It should have been obvious. How about part of the fuselage can be seen exiting the opposite side of the building in video. Is that better for you?
Please indicate where the fuselage exited. Fair enough?

__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 09:59 PM   #23
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
If it isn't part of the fuselage then it is blast material from parts of the fuselage. The photo you show does not refute that. The point is that parts of the plane seem to have made it to the opposite side of the building and the trajectory of UAL Flight 175 on impact supports that notion as it would have a relatively clear path across the 60 foot wide no column office space area on the east side of the tower.
Geez, I wonder where you can read a detailed study about that?

__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:04 PM   #24
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I am largely speaking hypothetically, yes, but it's difficult to imagine a different mechanism at impact.

The aircraft center of mass and center of pressure will line up with the main deck, not the center of area of the fuselage. Roll will therefore not move this to either side. Even if this was not true, we'd be talking about a translation of only a few inches. I fail to see how the roll angle introduces any problems with the impact scenario modeled by NIST.
The center of the main deck is horizontal and in order to give the headroom in the cabin of the 16.5 foot diameter fuselage is probably just below the center of the fuselage. If the aircraft rolls down to the left then the main deck will be more to the right of the core columns.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 10:06 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:05 PM   #25
njslim
Graduate Poster
 
njslim's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,073
I am wondering if R MacKey can explain one thing - what about secondary debris. The
impact of the aircraft as it ploughed through the building would have picked up anything
in its path - structural materials (exterior columns, pieces of floor truss), interior
partitions, furnishings et al. What would have been the result of these secondary
missiles on the building structure?
njslim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:05 PM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
I know the radome on the nose is fiberglass to allow the radar to see through it.

By nose I did not mean the actual radome. It should have been obvious. How about part of the fuselage can be seen exiting the opposite side of the building in video. Is that better for you?
NO, it was debris exiting. Sorry realcddeal, no thermite will save you and jones. The aircraft impact was over 2066 pounds of TNT energy. It sliced through the WTC just like a karate expert makes quick work of wood and concrete. It is not a trick, it is energy! You can do a simple model of energy and see that the number of columns damaged by 175 was proportional to the energy of 11.

The sad part about your analysis is you lack support and you lack the ability to apply any engineer expertise in a logical fashion. I can do a simple energy analysis, sit down with Robertson and he will agree with me. You can drag out differential equations and all the engineering crap you ever had, and your work is junk; Robertson would rake you over the coals and dump your work in the ash can.

If I was the team leader you would be fired in a second; and I am rusty! If I was the team leader with RM, I would have to study 16 hours a day to catch up. But with you a napkin and a rusty nail can beat your work.
No nose section came out the other side you have lost that point, and I find your work pathetic because you say things like the nose came out the other side! That is misleading others, very pathetic.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:08 PM   #27
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Geez, I wonder where you can read a detailed study about that?

Oh, I forgot you don't do any analyzing yourself. You just collect material. It seems as though if someone you agree with hasn't analyzed it then it couldn't be true.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:13 PM   #28
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
NO, it was debris exiting. Sorry realcddeal, no thermite will save you and jones. The aircraft impact was over 2066 pounds of TNT energy. It sliced through the WTC just like a karate expert makes quick work of wood and concrete. It is not a trick, it is energy! You can do a simple model of energy and see that the number of columns damaged by 175 was proportional to the energy of 11.

The sad part about your analysis is you lack support and you lack the ability to apply any engineer expertise in a logical fashion. I can do a simple energy analysis, sit down with Robertson and he will agree with me. You can drag out differential equations and all the engineering crap you ever had, and your work is junk; Robertson would rake you over the coals and dump your work in the ash can.

If I was the team leader you would be fired in a second; and I am rusty! If I was the team leader with RM, I would have to study 16 hours a day to catch up. But with you a napkin and a rusty nail can beat your work.
No nose section came out the other side you have lost that point, and I find your work pathetic because you say things like the nose came out the other side! That is misleading others, very pathetic.
Do you know what moment of inertia is there beachnut? Hitting the floors edge on is going into their greatest strength. Why don't your karate experts break the board through its longer dimension?

The question isn't about energy. We all know there was a lot of energy there. The question is how it was expended and about the orientation of the aircraft and what the volumetric probabilities were for doing damage to the core columns which was not visible.

I have said that it was most probably impact blast from fuselage parts not the nose.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 10:17 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:13 PM   #29
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Oh, I forgot you don't do any analyzing yourself. You just collect material. It seems as though if someone you agree with hasn't analyzed it then it couldn't be true.
He a better engineer than you are based on your 9/11 work.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:20 PM   #30
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Please indicate where the fuselage exited. Fair enough?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6885313f1a.jpg

Are you saying parts of the fuselage couldn't have exited the upper left where the fire is in that photo?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:21 PM   #31
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Do you know what moment of inertia is there beachnut? Hitting the floors edge on is going into their greatest strength. Why don't your karate experts break the board through its longer dimension?

I have said that it was most probably impact blast from fuselage parts not the nose. What do you think it was that exited the north side of the South Tower?
Engineer? Another dumb statement. OMG, the 4 inch light weight floor was what; a greatest strength event. No, the floor failed just like the columns; You must be unable to grasp 2066 pounds of TNT energy all expended in less than a second. I have to expect 10 core columns damaged and the exterior columns were destroy by the aircraft outline. Check out the energy required to shear a core column and exterior columns. 175 had enough energy to do a lot of damage.

Your main point is to disprove the damage to the building so you can back in explosives or THERMITE! You are failing, and your paper is still full of errors. If I were you, I would take my paper down and stop proving you are unable to do simple engineer estimates.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:21 PM   #32
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Not that nose business again...
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:22 PM   #33
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
He a better engineer than you are based on your 9/11 work.
And based on your lack of insightful comments I don't think you are in any position to judge engineering talent.

What did you ever design?
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:24 PM   #34
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Engineer? Another dumb statement. OMG, the 4 inch light weight floor was what; a greatest strength event. No, the floor failed just like the columns; You must be unable to grasp 2066 pounds of TNT energy all expended in less than a second. I have to expect 10 core columns damaged and the exterior columns were destroy by the aircraft outline. Check out the energy required to shear a core column and exterior columns. 175 had enough energy to do a lot of damage.

Your main point is to disprove the damage to the building so you can back in explosives or THERMITE! You are failing, and your paper is still full of errors. If I were you, I would take my paper down and stop proving you are unable to do simple engineer estimates.
Ok beachwoo, the plane hit the building and it all just blew up. It was just a completely devasting explosion, almost like a nuclear bomb hit it. There is just no way the building could survive those impacts. Who is anyone to question that outcome? Especially with the fire afterward. Nothing could survive that situation. You can go back to sleep now.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 10th November 2007 at 10:27 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:28 PM   #35
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
RealCD, how does a plane going through a building rigged with explosives not affect the demolition charges?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:30 PM   #36
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Do you know what moment of inertia is there beachnut? Hitting the floors edge on is going into their greatest strength. Why don't your karate experts break the board through its longer dimension?

The question isn't about energy. We all know there was a lot of energy there. The question is how it was expended and about the orientation of the aircraft and what the volumetric probabilities were for doing damage to the core columns which was not visible.

I have said that it was most probably impact blast from fuselage parts not the nose.
The floor slab is strong. But it's not going to develop the strength that you're talking about. What would be the compressive strength of a 4" plate that's 208 feet square? It has a b/t ratio of 624. Something tells me that local failures will occur long before any real compression is developed.

Oh whoops, there we go again, using real engineering.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:39 PM   #37
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Hello? RealCD, we've got a plane, ramming through a building, which is packed with explosives and ready to implode.

What's going on here? How does that work? Come on.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:40 PM   #38
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
And based on your lack of insightful comments I don't think you are in any position to judge engineering talent.

What did you ever design?
Aircraft approach procedures for first gulf war.
Software for cockpit research projects, and voice recognition at AFWAL.
Assembly language programs to run telephone system from hand radios.
Porch enclosure, 10 by 30, and roof to handle high winds.
System to run hydrogen fueled car economy. Design only.
Design and built, our dining room table, 4x8.
Directed contract, as lead engineer, for differential GPS system.
Directed contract, as lead engineer, for voice recognitions systems studies.
Directed laboratory studies, as lead engineer, as need by human factors engineers.
Directed contact work and contributed to cockpit study for future aircraft display concepts.
Directed and built crew system development branch lab.
Directed projects for Air Force laboratory. I had to make decisions on critical design reviews and guide the final product. Engineering stuff, I think.
Worked on switch gear to run large manufacturing systems.
Built bridges for cars over small rivers.
Designed and built horse jumps (over stuff, love those engineering terms, stuff) for fox hunts.

I designed and built a center channel with 7 drivers. Active crossover with 4 amps, one for each set of 10, 8, and 6 inch drivers, and one amp for the tweeter; the same tweeter used in the Dunlavy Audio Labs Signature SC-VI loudspeaker that cost $25k. The front panel is 2 inches thick wood. I took my daughters old triple bunk beds, I designed and built and used the wood to build the speakers. The top and bottom are 1 inch think, the back 1.5 inch, and the sides are 2 inches. The speaker is 21 to 17 inch deep, 1 foot tall, and 5 feet wide. The woofers share the large enclosure, all the other speaker are in their own 3/4 inch sub enclosure, air tight. You could park a truck on top of the speaker. My grandson helped me build it, he is three. We also built some other speakers designed by other people.

I worked operations as commander/operations officer for a small squadron for Desert Storm. We were a small unit of 10 aircraft and fifteen crews. A lot of engineer end up in management. Not engineering but it helped me understand BS when I see it.
Directed airlift support for Bosnia war; another chance to correct idiots who try to sling BS.

I was educated by some of the top control engineering professors in the world. They would rip up your work so easy. The sad part is none of my training and experience prepares me for your failure to produce facts on 9/11. Do I need more stuff? It is clear my humble experience is not needed to debunk your errors and false information on 9/11.

The bottom line; a napkin and old ink pen can beat your analysis on 9/11. You must have a problem with 9/11; a block of some sort.

Last edited by beachnut; 10th November 2007 at 11:35 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:47 PM   #39
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,111
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Ok beachwoo, the plane hit the building and it all just blew up. It was just a completely devasting explosion, almost like a nuclear bomb hit it. There is just no way the building could survive those impacts. Who is anyone to question that outcome? Especially with the fire afterward. Nothing could survive that situation. You can go back to sleep now.
I ripped you paper apart with simple research. Everyone can.

Impact, fire, collapse. Simple stuff you can't even understand. What a total waste of your engineering training. The buildings could survive impacts at slow speed. Not high speed. Slow speed ins below 200 knots. Sorry you lost the engineer contest and your paper is full of errors. Like I said your paper failed peer review by me. An I am just a simple engineer who flew jets for the Air Force. Beat by the Air Force. I also was trained in Aircraft Accident Investigation. Your ideas on the impact are poorly formed. If this was not true we would be agreeing with you.

Have you fixed you paper's errors yet? And how did the explosives survive the impacts and fires, and how did the evil doers know what floor the idiot pilots were going to hit?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2007, 10:58 PM   #40
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Are you saying parts of the fuselage couldn't have exited the upper left where the fire is in that photo?
YOU made the contention that the nose of the plane can be seen exiting the building on videos. Not us.

Of course parts of the fuselages exited the buildings. Small parts. Not parts that are recognizable in crash videos, like "the nose," and not whole fuselage cross-sections. Are you beginning to understand how the physical world works, and do you need to be directed again to where you can read a detailed study about this? (Hint: it's real close.)
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 10th November 2007 at 11:01 PM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.