Ryan Mackey vs. Morgan Reynolds

[pomeroo]

I cajoled Ryan Mackey into responding to the claims advanced by Morgan Reynolds in a protracted e-mail debate. Mackey's explanations were so lucid that I felt I should share them with the regulars here.
Ryan Mackey and Morgan Reynolds have granted me permission to post their contributions:

The fantasist Joseph Keith keeps prattling about “Joe’s Law,” offering a bogus reward of $5,000 to any rationalist who can refute it. He is, of course, not serious about his offer. Keith was scheduled to appear with “The Dynamic Duo” (Jim Fetzer’s radio show) last week, and Ryan Mackey had already commented back in June:

(Mackey wrote)
"Joe's Law" was comprehensively refuted, independently, by Dr. Greening and Dr. Omika years ago. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95876 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95876) for some details. I imagine they deserve the $5,000 much more than I, though I also predict they'll never collect, even if the money actually exists.


(Keith, unfazed by the contents of a thread he refused to read, restated his garble of basic physics)
Joe's Law: Airplanes don't meld into steel and concrete buildings, they
crash against them.
And, as Dr. Frank Greening says: "Ronnie, you're clueless!!!!!!!."
Is my offer still good?? Hell, I'll raise it to $10,000.

(Mackey replied)
The "Dynamic Duo?" What, is Batman investigating 9/11 now?

"Joe's Law" is so vague as to be utterly useless. I don't know exactly
what he means by "meld," and I suspect he doesn't either. An aircraft,
just like any solid object, will penetrate any other solid object if it has
enough velocity.
A large aircraft at high subsonic speed will penetrate any ordinary
concrete and steel construction. This has been proven repeatedly by
gravity bombs in armed conflicts which routinely penetrate up to a meter or
so of concrete, and several inches of armored steel (see USS Franklin and
Intrepid, HMS Argonaut, Glasgow, etc.). Since they are dropped by
aircraft, such bombs have only a fraction of the aircraft's potential and
kinetic energy; such bombs have more cross-sectional density than the
aircraft but the CSD is comparable to that of massive pieces, i.e. jet
engine cores.
Just as it is possible to build bunkers that will withstand conventional
bombing, one can fabricate a structure that will withstand even a large
aircraft strike, and nuclear power plants do exactly this. But there is a
huge difference between reactor pressure vessels and normal civilian
construction.

Since Mr. Keith is willing to choose a number of dollars, why is he
unwilling to use numbers in his "law?" How fast and how heavy an aircraft,
how thick columns, etc.? Numerical clarification should settle his
problems very quickly.

[pomeroo]

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
Has Wieck Tomato Man verified this for himself experimentally or just embraced the word of his “expert”?

How fast did you get that tomato to fly, Wieck? Is that your reason/excuse for admitting that a “high speed” tomato cannot penetrate a 6-foot concrete wall?

“The only Boeing 767 known hijacked prior to 9/11 was Ethiopian Flight 961 which ran out of fuel toward the end of its flight on November 23, 1996. Water tore the Boeing 767 to pieces off the island of Comoros in the Indian Ocean near the African coast, “Due to the fact that the pilot tried landing parallel with the tides, the left engine and wingtip struck the water first, causing the aircraft to break up.”[1] <#_ftn1> Is water—parallel with tides or not—“stronger” than a massive steel-and-concrete tower? Does H2O impose more resistance, more force, upon an airliner than a steel-and-concrete tower? Yet 14 inches of “soft” water resistance tore an armor-piercing, copper-jacketed .50 caliber round with muzzle-velocity of 2,000 mph to shreds despite being fired within ten ft. of the water.[2] <#_ftn2> Fourteen inches, ironically, is the width of steel box columns in the towers. Could such a copper-jacketed bullet pierce one side of a steel column, break through and still have enough energy and mass to break through the other side? Perhaps but maybe only a 500 mph aluminum plane can do that.”

[1] <#_ftnref1> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) ;http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/26/comoros.crash/crash.really.large.14sec.mov (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/26/comoros.crash/crash.really.large.14sec.mov) <http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/26/comoros.crash/crash.really.large.14sec.mov> (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9611/26/comoros.crash/crash.really.large.14sec.mov)

[2] <#_ftnref2> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/125635/50_caliber_sniper/ (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/125635/50_caliber_sniper/) <http://www.metacafe.com/watch/125635/50_caliber_sniper/>

Just trying to help out a weak friend and patriot :-)


(Reynolds then wrote)
This must be one of the thousands of witnesses Wieck is referring to:
18 secs. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3643581920592710703&q=Morgan%20Reynolds&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3643581920592710703&q=Morgan%20Reynolds&hl=en)


On 7/17/08 9:20 AM, "Alex LLoyd" <spooked911@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mr Wieck is still trying to figure out if his NASA expert was right when he said any solid object can penetrate another solid object if it is going fast enough.

So, according to Mr. Wieck's NASA expert, a ripe tomato going fast enough can penetrate a six foot thick concrete wall.

Gee whiz, all the KE and weight of that sand-heavy truck!? My, my, shoulda gone right through that pole, eh?


On 7/17/08 12:12 PM, "Alex LLoyd" <spooked911@hotmail.com> wrote:
a video y'all might enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeak0yVasp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeak0yVasp4)

on the stopping power of a single strong column


(Ryan Mackey wrote)
Of course a tomato can penetrate a concrete wall. How fast depends on the specs, but if I can pick any speed, I can destroy any object with any other object.
Mythbusters once made gliders out of concrete, a formulation that was so delicate it would crumble in your hand. A tomato would penetrate this at softball speeds without difficulty.
Many meters of armored concrete, on the other hand, would probably require our intrepid tomato to be at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. But, again, it is possible. The key property is momentum, and momentum is theoretically unlimited.

[pomeroo]

(Ryan Mackey provided this superb physics lecture)

You overestimate my skill as a teacher. There may well be no explanation that they can comprehend.

Here's an example, however: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2007/08/28/sci_spacegun.ART_ART_08-28-07_B4_2A7MIS3.html?print=yes&sid=101 (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2007/08/28/sci_spacegun.ART_ART_08-28-07_B4_2A7MIS3.html?print=yes&sid=101) An article by Kevin Mayhood in the Columbus Dispatch, talking about micrometeoroid testing. A 3/8 diameter sphere of aluminum, at high enough speed, will penetrate inches of aluminum in a solid block. How deep depends on how fast.
As noted in the article, the Shuttle was recently holed by a piece thought to be no larger than 1/20 of an inch. The Shuttle, on average, sees one window replaced per flight due to orbital debris impacts as small as flecks of paint from other missions. See here for details: http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/debris-risks.html (http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/debris-risks.html)

The strength of the impacting object doesn't necessarily make much difference. The impacted is generally classified according to two properties: pressure and impulse. "Pressure" is the pressure (force per area) felt by the hit object. Impulse is the total momentum applied. For any impacting object of a given mass and speed, the impulse is the same no matter what the strength of the object is, but the pressure can vary a bit as the object deforms.
Let's suppose the object has no material strength at all, say a water balloon, or overripe tomato to use their example. In this case, the pressure is Force divided by Area, and the Force is equal to the change in momentum relative to time (Newton's second law). The change in momentum is the amount of momentum being dissipated at any given instant, i.e. the momentum contained in the slice of tomato that's actually in contact at that instant. The fraction impacting per unit time is equal to the velocity of the object divided by its length. You also divide by the area to get pressure from total impulse, so the pressure is basically equal to the density (because density times length, times cross-sectional area, is the total mass) times the velocity squared -- one velocity for the total momentum, the other for the amount in contact at a given time.
The pressure therefore scales as the square of the velocity. This is not the same as the velocity squared term in the kinetic energy, so be careful.
If you have an object that actually has physical strength, it can make the impact either higher or lower pressure, depending on the speed. If the impact is slower than the sound speed of the material, then effectively more of the material impacts at once, as stress waves move through the material at the initial impact. But if the impact is faster than the sound speed, the material strength actually absorbs some of the impact and may cause pieces to rebound, further reducing the pressure felt. So at slow speed, like one throws, a 1 kg ripe tomato will not hurt nearly as much as a 1 kg steel ball. But at very high speed, say six kilometers per second, the tomato actually hurts more.

Another effect is that to physically crater the impacted object, one is basically digging out a conical or spherical shape. This means we are displacing an amount of material that scales roughly as the third power of the amount of penetration we need. So if the thickness of the wall is much larger than the impacting object, it needs to be at very high speed. To penetrate 2 m of wall requires (to first order) eight times as much impulse, and thus eight times as much speed, as a 1 m thickness.
In the WTC Towers case, however, the thickness of the wall is not large compared to the aircraft. The aircraft masses roughly 100,000 kg at impact, and the steel walls it contacts only mass about 60,000 kg. And neither is solid to begin with. Along the fuselage, the aircraft has about half of its mass or 50 tons, but applies this to only about 27 individual column sections massing perhaps 20 tons. So momentum is very much in the aircraft's favor. This situation is nothing at all like the tomato versus concrete wall.

The most accessible experience one can have for oneself is probably found at the rifle range. Pick a sturdy steel plate, and see what happens when you fire the following at it: .22LR from a pistol, .22LR from a rifle, .22WMR from a rifle, .223 Rem, and .22-250. All five fire a bullet of similar mass and composition, but the effect on the target is radically different as you increase in velocity, from about 900 feet per second to 3600 feet per second. And it is no difficult matter to penetrate solid steel, even though the bullet is copper-jacketed lead and MUCH weaker than the object it hits.

I've spent far more time on the ignorant than they deserve, so if that doesn't satisfy, I offer this: Anyone who thinks they can create structures that are proof against common airframes should apply to the Department of Defense immediately. Clearly they know something that designers of bunkers, missile silos, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc. do not.


(Morgan Reynolds responded)
Strength is key but size still matters :-)
“The alleged 767s would have weighed approximately 140 tons each. Five floors in the upper levels of the Twin Towers would have weighed at least 14,000 tons or 100x as much as a 767 and its load.42 Tons and tons of braced structural steel and concrete would destroy the airplane and leave a substantial portion of plane wreckage below the two impact zones and in the impact holes. NIST simulations actually display shredded airplane parts exiting the impact hole and being showered around the tower interior as if each plane were shredded while they simultaneously put huge gashes in exterior walls and interior floors. Yet NIST and its contractors furnish no evidence of shredded airplane parts in the holes, below the holes, or in the WTC plaza.43 The shredding of each plane was allegedly so fine that shredded parts removed fireproofing from trusses and columns everywhere, allowing fires to eventually weaken the structure up to the “initiation of collapse” and “collapse became inevitable.” 44 NIST and its contractors would have us believe that a fragile airplane could severe (cut) massive steel columns, perimeter and core, and steel-reinforced concrete floors while the plane shredded itself to shrapnel against the building. I am not making this up.”

“...So how can a plane made of lightweight materials (for actual/efficient flight) burst through such a robust structure of concrete and steel – i.e., how can thin aluminum wings severe and deform steel beams? Will NIST contractors come out with aluminum steel-cutting rotary blades to replace carbide/hardened steel plates used to cut metal? Despite the “lessons” taught about the impressive strength of lightweight aluminum and aluminum alloys vs. a dense latticework of steel/concrete on the morning of 9/11, U.S. industry has ignored this historic lesson about the properties of aluminum and carbide remains king in cutting metal.55”

Excerpts from newly posted pdf article at http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911 (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911)
Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center
(very large pdf, please download to read) ««•»» Morgan Reynolds

[pomeroo]

(Mackey's latest response)

Regarding Ace Baker's "Show me the bullet hole that also atomized the bullet," the answer is, just about all of them. The typical result for a high-powered rifle shot into moderately thick plate is a hole and tiny bits of copper jacket sprayed all around the berm. Clearly these folks have never been to the range -- a thought that gives me some comfort.
With, of course, the exception of former USMC Morgan Reynolds. Surely he can appreciate the analogy, which is one reason why I picked it in the first place.
It's not unusual for karate demonstrations to result in cracked bricks and broken hands, either.
Regarding the "total mass of five floors is much heavier than the aircraft," he is correct, but totally irrelevant. The aircraft doesn't have to totally destroy all five floors. It only hits a few dozen columns. See NCSTAR1-2B for a complete model of the situation, which takes momentum and strength fully into account... and is a perfect fit to the observed holes driven into the two structures.
Also, regarding the F-4 Phantom sled video, they are conveniently overlooking that the wall in question was not an ordinary concrete and steel wall. It was in fact a wall designed to survive an aircraft impact, in a simulation of nuclear reactor pressure vessel construction. Hardly comparable to the WTC Towers.
Just like any solid object will penetrate any other object if it has enough speed, you can build a wall that will resist any penetration if you build it thick enough. In the F-4 case, this was done -- the wall was built to aircraft impact spec. The result should not surprise anyone.

(Reynolds offers a challenge to JREFers)

No content to demonstrate where Newton and Reynolds are wrong, as usual.

Wieck is an embarrassment to science, the world and himself everytime he rants and slurs his opponents but he’s too arrogant, dense and ignorant to understand what a tyrannical idiot he is. Gee, it’s fun to pick on you, Weak.


On 7/19/08 5:05 PM, "Ronald Wieck" <pomeroo@verizon.net> wrote:
Well, for an academic, you are an embarrassing ignoramus, but you have done something few of your fellow charlatans are willing to risk: you have clearly stated your defective understanding of physics. You, of course, suspect that you've got it all wrong. Otherwise, you would consult a physics professor. You do realize that he will explain why your interpretation of Newton is erroneous.

(Reynolds wrote)
Look at their behavior: yes, JREF is mostly NSA/trolls/ignoramuses/typists designed to convey the illusion that the American public cannot and will ever “get it” about the 9/11 fraud. But if you want to post my email there, permission is granted provided you subsequently relay “The Best of JREF” telling us the “best” of the “refutations” of the two propositions in my email, namely,

Newton’s 3d law of equal and opposite reaction in a violent interaction (collision) between two objects, and
The inferior strength and mass of the object called “tomato” compared to an object called “concrete.”
“Concrete is a construction material composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) as well as other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate such as gravel limestone or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures. The word concrete comes from the Latin word "concretus", which means "hardened" or "hard".
Concrete solidifies and hardens after mixing with water and placement due to a chemical process known as hydration. The water reacts with the cement, which bonds the other components together, eventually creating a stone-like material. The reactions are highly exothermic and care must be taken that the build-up in heat does not affect the integrity of the structure. Concrete is used to make pavements, architectural structures, foundations, motorways/roads, bridges/overpasses, parking structures, brick/block walls and footings for gates, fences and poles.
More concrete is used than any other man-made material in the world.[1] As of 2006, about seven billion cubic meters of concrete are made each year—more than one cubic meter for every person on Earth.[2] Concrete powers a $US 35-billion industry which employs more than two million workers in the United States alone. More than 55,000 miles of highways in America are paved with this material. The People's Republic of China currently consumes 40% of the world's cement/concrete production.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato)
Stone-like material, eh Ronnie? That’s concrete, not the “wolfie peach.” Concrete up against a sloppy soft vegetable? Maybe we should resurface roads with tomatoes, Ron?
Lots ‘o luck, WEAK. You need it.

[Hokulele]

Heh. They should spend an afternoon with these guys (http://www.wind.ttu.edu/Research/DebrisImpact/Reports/DIF_reports.pdf).

[pomeroo]

Heh. They should spend an afternoon with these guys (http://www.wind.ttu.edu/Research/DebrisImpact/Reports/DIF_reports.pdf).


What? Read a real scientific report?

Unthinkable! Any, anyway, the authors are liars.

[beachnut]

I was always wondering why birds killed pilots when we were flying at 300 plus KIAS! They can't. Who will tell the dead pilots family, or the guy whose collarbone was broken by a turkey buzzard?

With the right stuff, you could take a tomato and do a lot of damage! My cousin said it hurt! With the proper set up, we can send that tomato and bust some steel. Was my Econ teacher Morgan?

The stupid hurts; Does Morgan imply a tsunami can't do much damage, or is he saying a tsunami is an evil Mother Nature, and Ms Nature works for the NSA like me and most of JREF?

[Hokulele]

What? Read a real scientific report?


You're right. My bad. That report does include two equations, one of which involves . . .

[cue dramatic music]

. . . EXPONENTS!