Hardfire THE PHYSICS OF 9/11 3RD PROGRAM / RYAN MACKEY / RONALD WIECK

[garypopkin]

Ryan does not make any claim as to what actually happened. If you had paid attention, you would have known that the series of three programs was intended only to answer the question, "Does the physics of the event allow for the possibility that it happened the way the government said?" "Could the event have occurred as the government said?" Of course answering that question is one-sided. The answer is Yes, it could have happened that way. Ryan makes no claim beyond that.

[WarCrime911]

This video is completely one sided. You have a Government employee speaking as an expert witness, yet none of the evidence of explosives or controlled demolition or counter arguments are adequately addressed.

Sure I agree that it is scientifically possible (although extremely unlikely) that the towers collapsed naturally due to fire weakening the steel structure. But it is far from scientific to conclude that this is the only possibility for what could have happened and ignore all others.

[ctcole77]

9/11 was an OUTSIDE job!

[Merlin5by5]

AW, C'mon, you know Radio Disk Jockeys are Physics experts and International Politics Experts, don't you?

Oh, I did laugh at that, but I tried to keep a straight face.

Sorta, after a couple of minutes.

[kangtimelord]

What's hilarious is Twooftards make all sorts of scientific and engineering claims, yet absolutely none of them have any training or education in such. They are nothing but arrogant loudmouth braindead imbeciles.

[psikeyhackr]

Proof of the greatness of Ryan Mackey

watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

[JimmyGunXD556]

Here was I "think" happened and may explain why we are so confused with what we saw. 1) Planes hit the buildings. 2) the structures were weakend through heat and damage. 3) When the top floors gave, the terrorist blew the buildings. In closing the terrorist damaged and blew the buildings, and for some reason if we detect exsplosives it means the US did it. No...I feel the terroist used explosives and they did it. This is the only thing that I could think of that would answer everything.

[JJTechnologies]

pretty much waste of time. If that's what he has to say, than good for him, but I really don't see the point to go over it again, as his arguments about the collapse were proven wrong too many times. He was probably the one who's sent challenger up there to break in half? :)

[todanp]

@JJTechnologies

wow he doesn't believe in your quackery so he must be a murderer?

[wordgeezer]

While it is interesting that a rocket scientist enjoys model making and considers it as a reliable way to predict the way the buildings fell, the models don't take into account the obvious evidence of extreme temperatures and exponential energy releases.

What is Mackie's answer to this dilemma?

Simply that the evidence doesn't exist. I guess that this is why the NIST has a disclaimer on their report...):

[psikeyhackr]

Mackey's conceptual model is all wrong because his falling mass is SOLID.

In the WTC the structure above the impact was the same as that below. So if the bottom was crushable then so was the top. Therefore on impact there would be mutual self destruction absorbing kinetic energy of the falling mass

SLOWING IT DOWN.

[psikeyhackr]

The first OBVIOUS problem with Ryan's CoNcEpTuAl model is that his falling mass is SOLID.

The WTC above the impact point had the same structure as that below. Therefore it had to be just as CRUSHABLE. It had to absorb energy on collision and the only source was the kinetic energy of the falling mass therefore it would SLOW DOWN.

So how does Ryan justify a SOLID falling mass?

[admiralct]

@psikeyhackr but lets be real here, no model of any kind made by anyone is going to convince the truthers, they're hopeless, no matter what anybody says. they WANT an interesting conspiracy to be true, so to them it is, and that's how it will always be.

[psikeyhackr]

@admiralct

Conspiracies are irrelevant.

This is nothing but physics and engineering. If they can't build a self supporting structure with a a height at least 6 times the width where the top 15% can crush the rest then the Official Conspiracy Theory is crap.

They don't even tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers.

.

[admiralct]

@psikeyhackr what dude? people who are smart enough to know better, and educated enough to understand the physical science yet still believe the CD theory are beyond help.

you're refusing to inform yourself on a subject of which you are taking an authoritative stance.

[psikeyhackr]

@admiralct

What is EDUCATED?

How do you analyze an airliner hitting a skyscraper if you don't know the distributions of steel and concrete in the skyscraper? Some people just think being educated means being INTELLIGENT but they can't think their way out of a paper bag.

911 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

Skyscrapers must get stronger and heavier all of the way down. The top of the north tower crushing the rest in less than 18 seconds is totally absurd.

.

[admiralct]

@psikeyhackr i take issue with the alleged implications of the buildings method of collapse. regardless of what one may argue, at the end of the day, each and every truther cease's the suggesting and outright says is "WTC was a controlled demolition". there's no hiding from the conclusion that truthers have hitched their wagon to. how exactly would thermite cause the building to crush itself like that "in ways that gravity and mass induced destruction cannot"? those planes did tremendous damage

[psikeyhackr]

@admiralct Can you tell us the weight of the concrete slab outside the core?  If you can't then how can you be EDUCATED about this subject.

[admiralct]

@psikeyhackr i've got these pre-911 books about the construction of the WTC, i haven't cracked into em yet. they might mention things like that. like how much the top 1/3 weighed. ya there's just no way or reason to demolish those buildings. it was a catastrophy with catastrophic results, we got our butt's kicked, c'mon now with this demolition crap.

[JPPolachek]

If what the TRUTHERS say is true, these were the risks involved for the Goverment in carrying out these attacks. 1.) The risk of workers at the WTC 1,2,7 seeing the bombs being planted. 2.) The risk that demolition evidence, blasting caps, ext. will be left over and screw up the whole secret. 3.) The risk that anyone of the 1000-10,000 people involved will talk and blow the secret. 4.) The risk that someone will record "the countdown at the WTC". MORE TO COME.......

[wordgeezer]

Question:

Which building are you modeling?

Surely not bldg. 7, because , as we all know, it was collapsing from the bottom up. No falling block, thanks in advance...G:

[JPPolachek]

was this to complicated for you, is that why your not sure of the point he is making. Maybe if this is over your head, so is the collapse. So if the above is true, then for you to make a claim about what destroyed the towers is not a good idea, you might miss a critical concept, and thus come to a poor conclusion. What is a poor conclusion, well say thinking explosives were involved in the collapse.

[earth666zoo]

is it called the physics of 9 11 becusase they had to make it up especially.

ha ha - nothing debunked here - only the smell of desperation.

[swingdangler]

Nice slide 2-8 in the modeling process. For some reason the core columns are missing. Shouldn't a model reflect reality?

[chunkyboy100]

shhhhh dont mention the core.

[swingdangler]

I notice that Ryan can't point to an official government study explaining the collapse. WOW! Why not??

[psikeyhackr]

At 6 min. Mackey does the conservation of momentum calculation of the falling mass hitting the stationary mass. He then talks about the calculation of the TOTAL moving mass breaking the supports.

But the stationary mass can't move until the supports are bent or broken and they won't bend or break until the mass moves.

Mackey is ASSUMING the two actions which must occur simultaneously can be analyzed separately and don't affect each other.

How does he PROVE THAT?

[kangtimelord]

psikey:

1. Your 2nd paragraph is simply nonsensical. Do you really look at what you type in your posts?

2. Your 3rd & 4th paragraphs are even worse. He's setting up three valid equations - one for simple conservation of momentum, and two for simple conservation of energy.

3. His point is scaling to show that bonehead Gage, who should know better, has abused such.

[kangtimelord]

psikey,

You probably think Mackey is setting up these equations to model entire WTC collapses. Again, he's doing this to show what is necessary to accurately scale down the towers. Most Twoofer "scientists" do not scale their scale models correctly (in particular, bonehead Gage - a disgrace to science).

To do a computer simulation is a completely different animal.

You know, you seem smart, but you also seem overtly stubborn.

[psikeyhackr]

@kangtimelord

{{{ He's setting up three valid equations - one for simple conservation of momentum, and two for simple conservation of energy. }}}

All you can do is accuse people of talking nonsense. You need for people to know less than you do.

I wasn't talking about conservation of energy.

At 6 min he is talking about conservation of MOMENTUM. But the impacted mass is supported, that equation only applies without support. He is separating simultaneous events.

[kangtimelord]

@psikey:

I see what you're saying now, and you would be correct if the intent is to model the collapse. But, even with your "correction", equations still too simplified. Nonetheless, as stated before, Mackey is NOT trying to do that. Rather, he is showing how to SCALE simple COM & COE equations to prove how Twoofer scientists such as braindead Gage have abused it. You need to see Gage's phony "experiment" he did on Hardfire. It was a monumental sham! And he should be ashamed.

[JPPolachek]

Well, will you debate him, NO,,Will any of the fathers of your movement debate any debunkers anymore. NO...They know they get destroyed at every debate, and they know it, they know they look stupid....The only way the Truth Movement can continue at this point is to reject all debate, and hide...To only make their claims surrounded by their supporters, but they will never debate on Camera, in front of the American Public, because they want to be able to keep making money off of the Truthers.

[kangtimelord]

Why bother? It's irrelevant 'cept for Twoofers

[kangtimelord]

Twoofers think fire does nothing to steel. They base science on Loony Tune cartoons. Not a good idea.

[AiresQX4]

Yeah explain how your magic low heat fire was able to produce tons of molten metal under all 3 towers? That is without denial or lies..

[kangtimelord]

Easy to explain, there was no magic. Molten metal, if any, was molten Al or other low temperature melting metal.

[AiresQX4]

Ok I'll show you in a video..

[Seigu007]

tweedle dee & tweedle dum are telling you that fires can hurl huge steel beems 400 yards in every direction. sheep.

[kangtimelord]

Typical Twoofer, mocking real science. What are your science credentials, Twoofer? Remember, seeing Bigfoot doesn't count.

Go join your Twoofer hero Jim Fetzer in claiming FDNY are liars and are complicit in mass homicide.

[Seigu007]

good joke. remember, fires can cause buildings to collapse! idiot.

[kangtimelord]

Obviously

[lovepg]

Sduderstant on DU is a moderator claiming to be a regular poster. DU has an anti truther agenda.

This poster knew I was tombstoned and posted about it.

Only a moderator would have that information.

[psikeyhackr]

There were 76 exterior wall panels and 4 corner panels around each level of the towers above the 9th floor. Since the panels were 3 times the height of a level then the weight of 26 exterior wall panels were at each level of the building.

There were 12 different grades of exterior wall panels.

So why aren't we told the weights and quantities of each type of panel after EIGHT YEARS? Why doesn't Mackey want that information for an accurate model?

They have really great SCIENTISTS at NASA!

[wordgeezer]

A model in research is used as a prototype for a working example. Is the corporate government actually paying you for this? Looks like your brain has shrinked along with the model...G:

[undajun2]

"Inevitably truthers r just going to claim yr just tweaking the model to make it do what u want"

"Right, & you should tweak yr model...U have to see that yr parameters are reasonable...(blinking,stutter­,guilty conscience)...now the other thing that happens.."

Ok tell us about "less severe" models that still prove yr conclusions

like NIST computer simulations w/ planes going 2x as fast w/ 2x the fuel, hitting bldings w/ no fireproofing w/ fires 2x as hot & twice as long..

those crazy tweakers

[psikeyhackr]

So Mackey talked about a scaled model. He has these m's for mass and h's for the height and strength of the columns.

But how can a scaled model be built without knowing the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? When has Mackey said that the NIST should provide that information?

[thewholesoul]

NIST's computer model did NOT simulate the actual freefall collapse of building 7.

[sidneyoh]

6:36 why is there just columns on outside ?

wheres the center core ?

[MrTruthMonkey]

Good video. - i encourage analysing the science behind collapse - conservation of momentum/energy is such an easy thing to understand... if gravity was the only force bringing those towers down, then the upward resistance of the remaining floors would not allow a freefall collapse (underscored by nist data). The idea that the energy was increasing is a fallacy. The momentum could not be increased with each successive floor, there would be resistance. how is that not obvious?

[wolfumz]

Obviously if an object falls it increases in energy as it falls, from gravity speeding it up. If I read you right you claim that a building collapsing from the top down will slow as it hits each floor, and that the bottom floors will stay rigid and absorb the energy of the collapse until it stops.

watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

How is this video happening, then? The supports in the building were not weakened.

[Weirdo10o4]

Those models... retards...

[femr2]

femr2. ucoz. com

[horror11]

hahaha nasa fakers analyse 911 fakers:)

what else will they present us next?

oswalds last will and why he killed jfk?

whenever i think americans cannot get any dumber they proove me wrong, guess too much fast food and 3rd grader gameshows:)

u guys should really stop pumping aspartam and fluorides into ur heads:)

[Weirdo10o4]

Maybe you should know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Wez666]

Stop! You're confusing all the truthtards with all this technical stuff.

Alex Jones, now he's a true expert......

lol

[psikeyhackr]

@Wez666 Mackeys conceptual model has a SOLID mass falling on the rest. That is not what the WTC was.

Mackey uses the conservation of momentum equation but the impacted mass can't move unless the supports are bent are broken. The supports can't be bent or broken unless the mass moves. He is pretending those things are independent of each other. NOT!

.

[unclesamsnephew666]

"Explosives, alone, fulfill that requirement "

well, that and the unseen interior collapse that led to the east penthouse falling into the structure itself of course.

it's not like any reasonable person could possibly believe the east penthouse was the first part of the building to be demolished with explosives.

so since it was the first to go down, then anyone who isn't a nut would know it is much more likely that there was interior collapse rather than explosives, don't you agree?

[rubeeye127]

Unclesamsnephew is a little bitch! He got totally owned and educated by me so he blocked me! Little bitch!

[unclesamsnephew666]

ha! ha! ha! lying cunt.

[251omega]

Nobody said anything about WHERE or WHEN the explosives were detonated. You are right. A reasonable person would assume the explosives were somewhere in the building BELOW the penthouse !

There WAS an interior collapse, or the top couldn't fall. So, where did the energy that caused the interior collapse, come from? No energy to demolish the structure was available from the falling mass or it would have fallen slower than FREE-FALL SPEED!

It's only high school physics,

Science - NOT OPINION.

[thedman113]

"So, where did the energy that caused the interior collapse, come from?"

????

"or it would have fallen slower than FREE-FALL SPEED!'

It did fall slower than free fall speed.

[251omega]

wrong. EVEN NIST was forced to confirm 2,8 seconds of freefall in their Final FINAL report on WTC7 in NOVEMBER 2008.

I wish you clowns would do your HOMEWORK before jumping to absurd conclusions. At least try to have SOME working knowlege of the subject.

The other fellow above asked: Freefall is proof of controlled demolition, ACCORDING TO WHO?

That is easily answered by anyone who paid attention during his high school Physics classes.

If you don't have that level of understanding, WHY debate?

[thedman113]

"wrong. EVEN NIST was forced to confirm 2,8 seconds"

Only 2.8 seconds? (Actually it was 2.25, but I don't expect twoofers to have their facts straight.) How did it fall the rest of the collapse time?

[251omega]

OK, 2.3Secs....Sorry.

You DO understand that the conclusion is unchanged , whether 2.3 or 2.8 ???

Are You just playing stupid , or do you REALLY have trouble identifying the focus or significant part of an argument?

This is serious. Drop the act and be sincere.

Or is the "DUMB" routine simply a defense mechanism, so you don't have to think about the grim reality of TREACHERY and TREASON by key members of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. All of the Killing we have done, based on lies, is MASS MURDER

[thedman1113]

"You DO understand that the conclusion is unchanged , whether 2.3 or 2.8 ???"

What's the conclusion?

[251omega]

I have given you the benefit of the doubt, and I have tried to sincerely answer your questions, as if you really had a severe comprehension problem. I see now, that you're just Too terrified to accept the horrible conclusions that MUST follow from the EVIDENCE.

With all the positive ways you could have used your intellect, You have SHAMED yourself by the path you have chosen..

Now that I understand your game, I choose to make better use of MY time. I hope you make better use of YOUR time.

[thedman113]

"and I have tried to sincerely answer your questions"

No you haven't. I asked you 3 posts ago "Only 2.8 seconds? How did it fall the rest of the collapse time?" and you never answered that. I wonder why...

[251omega]

The initial freefall proves controlled demolition.

THAT is the ISSUE here.

It is not important that there were also moment of LESS than freefall speed.

If you had a better science education, you would not be injecting these irrelevant and diversionary questions.

or MAYBE you know the physics perfectly well and these are deliberate attempts at DIS-information!

you are not helping us to discover the TRUTH about the FALSE-FLAG -TERRORISM of 9/11.

Ask someone you trust to explain it to you, PLEASE!

[thedman113]

"It is not important that there were also moment of LESS than freefall speed."

Yes it is - if it were demo'd, there would have been free fall for almost the entire collapse, not just 15-20% of it. Sorry. You lose.

[jayep]

quick! find the traces of explosives that were found in wtc 7! GO!

[251omega]

In August ,2008, NIST admitted that WTC7 was in FREEFALL for 2.8 seconds, and REWROTE their final report on WTC7 in November 2008, to reflect that fact. See the three part video by DAVID CHANDLER, a high school physics teacher. In FREEFALL, or even UNIFORM ACCELERATION , there was no energy available from the gravity collapse to destroy, pulverize, or otherwise remove the structure below the collapse.  There HAD to be another source of energy. Explosives, alone, fulfill that requirement .

[unclesamsnephew666]

"...NIST admitted that WTC7 was in FREEFALL for 2.8 seconds... "

oh, so you now know that truthers were wrong for years and years as they kept saying "WTC7 fell at free fall speed"

since truthers never added any qualifications or caveats of how long it fell for free fall speed, then they it is clear how wrong they were.

I'm hope you join me in hoping they don't try to claim they meant 2.8 seconds all along. because that would be total bullshit, wouldn't it? huh? huh? yeah, it would.

[251omega]

The fact that there was ANY amount of time in free-fall is sufficient to prove controlled demolition.

The important issue is that free-fall occurred, not its' duration. The conclusion remains the SAME!

There are many mistakes and unanswered questions that must be addressed; hence, the calls for a new INTERNATIONAL investigation!

Controlled Demolition is the only hypothesis with supporting forensic evidence.

Explosives residue found in the dust, has been recently confirmed by 9 scientists

[EdgemanLL2]

""The fact that there was ANY amount of time in free-fall is sufficient to prove controlled demolition. ""

False. if only 2.5 seconds out of an 18 second collapse is free fall, that means there is resistane for (approx) 85% of the collapse.

If i roll a bowling ball down a flight of stairs, it has moments of free fall--yet does not descend vertically at anywhere near free fall speed.

Try "physics for dummies." Avaialble at fine book stores anywhere.

[251omega]

The Bowling ball slows from free-fall each time it hits a step. Drop the ball with no stairs and then compare times. Nist says that wtc7 achieved free-fall acceleration for 2.8 seconds or 8 floors distance. What removed 8 floors of RESISTANCE (supporting steel ), to account for 2.8 secs of free-fall? The "PHYSICS FOR DUMMIES" comment was quite ironic. Do you usually recommend books that you haven't read yourself? You need to review the DAVID CHANDLER videos; Great explanation of free-fall.

[EdgemanLL2]

""The Bowling ball slows from free-fall each time it hits a step. Drop the ball with no stairs and then compare times.""

EXACTLY. Thus proving your earlier comment ""The fact that there was ANY amount of time in free-fall is sufficient to prove controlled demolition. "" is 100% FALSE.

Because there can be many many moments of free fall (ie, the ball in between hitting each step) yet its NOT a controlled demolition.

[251omega]

The part of the building in freefall can not be moving the lower structure out of the way, that would reduce fall speed proportionately. Since all sides agree that 2.8secs of freefall actually did happen, we have to explain the source of the energy.that COMPLETELY REMOVED 8 floors of supporting steel. Since a group of international scientists have scientifically verified the discovery of EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE in the WTC dust, controlled demolition is the only hypothesis with supporting evidence.

[EdgemanLL2]

""The part of the building in freefall can not be moving the lower structure out of the way, that would reduce fall speed proportionately.""

You have no qualification to make that statement.

Further themite is an incindiary, NOT an explosive--and they didnt verify thermite either. They found "thermitic material." Thats not thermite any more than a bag of grass seed is a golf course.

Swing and a miss.

[thedman113]

"we have to explain the source of the energy.that COMPLETELY REMOVED 8 floors of supporting steel"

That would be the gravitational potential energy of the interior structure, which collapsed prior to the outer shell falling.

[manwello15]

"That would be the gravitational potential energy of the interior structure, which collapsed prior to the outer shell falling."

To use your argument "You have no qualification to make that statement." fool.

[thedman113]

"To use your argument "You have no qualification to make that statement." fool. "

Where was that my argument? Make some sense.

[manwello15]

"""The part of the building in freefall can not be moving the lower structure out of the way, that would reduce fall speed proportionately.""

[[[[You have no qualification to make that statement.]]]]***[this was your argument statement]***

[[[Further themite is an incindiary, NOT an explosive--and they didnt verify thermite either. They found "thermitic material." Thats not thermite any more than a bag of grass seed is a golf course."]]] and a bit of this too.

Remember?

[thedman113]

[[[[You have no qualification to make that statement.]]]]***[this was your argument statement]***

No, it wasn't. There's more than one person posting to this thread, genius.

[manwello15]

Yes it was, don't be a fool. It is printed right in front of you.

Oh, wait, your a archie-debunker, you do not see things right in front of you. Sorry, I forgot.

[thedman113]

"Yes it was, don't be a fool. It is printed right in front of you."

It sure is printed right in front of me. I'll copy it for you:

"EdgemanLL2 (4 days ago)

You have no qualification to make that statement. "

Is my name EdgemanLL2? You're making yourself look ridiculous here. Even more so.

[manwello15]

lol your right....sorry man, my bad. You were the wrong guy. Please except my apology for my mistake.

[unclesamsnephew666]

"The fact that there was ANY amount of time in free-fall is sufficient to prove controlled demolition. "

according to who?

"The important issue is that free-fall occurred, not its' duration"

bullshit. the important thing is it proves truthers are full of shit and have no idea what they are talking about and just repeat slogans until they need to say "well, what we meant was...."

it's so obvious.

"has been recently confirmed by 9 scientists"

and laughed at by the rest.

[EdgemanLL2]

""there was no energy available from the gravity collapse to destroy, pulverize, or otherwise remove the structure below the collapse""

Looks like somebody has never heard of Kinetoc Energy, have they?

[rubeeye127]

I suppose you've heard of it, but you can't spell it.

[EdgemanLL2]

LOL, if bagging typos is the best you got, Ill accept ur surrender on behalf of the twoofers.

[jonLukasC]

are you a no planer

cause they are the only twoofers who can deny this show as being fact

but that being said if they are wrong

tell me how

specific points

you wont youll say look at the big picture

I have

politically 9/11 being an inside job makes no sense either

[251omega]

During free-fall, ALL of the gravitational energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy. This leaves NO energy to demolish the building or to push the steel aside.

If any of that energy was used to remove or demolish the supporting structure, the collapse could NOT have achieved FREE FALL SPEED!

Since free-fall speed was observed (Admitted by NIST), we KNOW that there MUST be other sources of energy to explain the observed destruction. Explosives found in the dust is final proof.

[EdgemanLL2]

""ALL of the gravitational energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy. This leaves NO energy to demolish the building or to push the steel aside. ""

1) Great. show your math.

2) Dont use words you dont understand, like "kinetic energy."

3) They didnt find explosives. They found "themritic material." a) thats not thermite, and b) even if it was, thermite isnt an explosive.

ur woefully uneducated in this issue.

[unclesamsnephew666]

so you honestly believe you have this all figured out and the hardcore egghead scientists and engineers from places like MIT who worked on the NIST report and NASA/JPL people should bow down to your superior knowledge of physics and engineering.

you really believe that?

or can you accept that it is possible that you do not have all of your facts/math/understanding of the events straight and are mistaken?

"Explosives found in the dust..." from a guy who thinks jesus visited america? really?