It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey Answers ATS Questions

page: 2
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Since when is a NASA scientist a structural expert?


Never.


I beg to differ. So does NASA

NASA's DART Structural Assessment Team:
dart.arc.nasa.gov...

Here's a NASA job listing for a structural engineer:
www.space-careers.com...

Two of many references to NASA and their use of structural engineers.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   




OK. Explain to me Mr. Mackey's structural engineering degree.. Thanks.

Because, as far as I know, he is only a system safety manager. Maybe we should ask him why the space shuttles are blowing up rather than structural engineering?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


I see what you're getting at. I can't call out Mr. Mackey for being wrong in some little thing and then being wrong in some little thing myself. Cheers!!!



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
Great thread! This is exactly the type of thread that ATS needs to see more of! Great Post Captain!

quoting for truth. big Kudos to all who made this thread possible.
we do need more threads like these here on ATS. i will not weigh in my opinion on this though, but im subscribed and watching the experts rip this paper apart.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I'll have a few questions again for him, too.
If he turns up here.
About seismic evidence contradicting NIST report timestamps.
Since it seems he did not take the time ever to read my ATS thread answer to their JREF posts in their thread about my thesis. That answer of mine was given in the ATS thread about it.

But let's first get his (and his colleagues at JREF) answers to the structural engineering questions from Valhall. I really would like to hear those first.


Originally posted by Valhall :
I hope he doesn't ask him this because the building didn't fall in "just about 10 seconds". It fell in 14 to 16 seconds (WTC 1 and WTC 2).
Originally posted by Griff :
As much as I love you Valhall, the "official" story is 10 and 11 seconds. It's the official story that states as FACT freefall time.


Griff, the 9/11 Commission Report first came with an official 10 seconds collapse thesis, but it was based on far too early investigations without enough video proof of the collapses. I saw them however never retract those false data.

Btw, does NIST endorse the 10 seconds collapse, or the 14 seconds one?

Because I posted a few years ago (at least so long in my perception of time passing) a BBC video, where you saw the start of the collapse of WTC 2 South, and then a huge portion of the exterior wall fell down very near to the base of the tower. (So at least that piece got not ejected out as far as the Winter Garden glass roof !)
And you could count the seconds it took from when it broke loose at the point of earlier plane impact, and subsequent impact on the ground.
That is the best proof of how many seconds it actually took for debris, initially situated at the 77th to 85th floors, to reach ground level during collapse of WTC 2.

Btw :
(Yes, Valhall, I have the same problems with searching for my posts as you seem to have, some accounts here seemed to have the same glitch affected to them. This is the main reason I have minimized my activity here, since it is annoying to no end, to not be able to respond in an informed manner to other posters.
It should be the main feature of an on-board Search engine, to be able to search and get a list of ALL ones own posts by your own username.
And search for posts by using specific search terms I remember 100 % sure from past posts to have used in that text, together with my username.)

[edit on 30/9/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   
This quote from Bsbray11 seems in place in this thread, we all sit behind screens and are not attached to real world situations like the eyewitnesses in New York and near the Pentagon were, during the day of 9/11.



Source : www.abovetopsecret.com... bsbray11:
You go through school being mechanically taught from history books that are dumbed-down and simplified and don't even cite their sources, and then continue your life being "informed" by electronic boxes with pictures and sounds of people that don't even know you, and that you don't really know. If you want to be honest, we hardly actually know anything at all, any of us. Everything you think about 9/11 is based on what you saw and were told on TV, and faith. That's all.


So let decency prevail in our postings on bulletin board forums.
And try not to get too emotionally involved and post things you later regret.

[edit on 30/9/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

As much as I love you Valhall, the "official" story is 10 and 11 seconds. It's the official story that states as FACT freefall time.


No, actually it's not. I think that the fact that number got published in one of the earlier reports and then removed shows what a rush job was done on this - fairly indicative of the apparent sloppiness that bothers me.

It is not stated as an official number in any final reports by NIST (unless I've made a major bone-headed move and missed it back when I spent days and days trying to find it), but it was stated in preliminary documents by FEMA (I'm not sure it ever was by NIST) at one time. Then the other "rush to complete" organization (the 911 Commission) sloppily included the number in their final report even though NIST/FEMA had realized after analysis that the number was bogus and had removed it.

P.S. Love you too!

[edit on 9-30-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple


I might like to ask if the free fall calculations expressed here included energy conversion for concrete floor pulverization. -Im a pancake fan.

Steel and concrete - still more durable than a jet fueled collapse theory.


I believe there have been some modelings done by other members on threads dedicated to such in which they attempted to model the energy losses associated with the floors, etc.

In the thread I am referring to the calculations were simply free-fall with no energy loss estimations because the entire exercise was to see how much slower the macro-level average acceleration was compared to true free-fall with only gravity. So no drag or energy losses due to impact were taken into account.

P.S. So to sum up - the intent of the calculations I did were to show to others discussing such that the statement "the buildings fell at freefall" was incorrect. The additional time must be allocated to energy loss both through drag and impact/failures.

[edit on 9-30-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
OK well I'm no structural engineer but the massive collapse of wtc 1/2 had to have blown out the underground support for wtc7 after seeing how that whole complex was built. Considering this, Isn't the first tower to collapse the only building that we studying? I think the true cause of the failing of that building and the speed of it has just about everyone baffled because know one has seen something that big fall before. Not long ago I saw a video of the attack and the one building had a massive hole in it that you could see right through to the other side, That building was going to come down one way or another. As far as the reports of why everything happened the way it did, I think that discussions like this are great and I think that all the Scientist who wrote that 9/11 report need to work with other scientist and come up with a better report that all can agree on or just build a copy of the first tower to fall out in the desert, Wire it up with all kinds of measuring equipment and remotely fly a plane into it and see what happens. We could definitely find ways to make buildings a whole lot stronger that way.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Why did the upper portion of the South Tower which appeared to begin to topple over suddenly disintegrate in mid air? This seems to violate "path of least resistance". Also the actual distance was relatively small as the section impacted the remaining intact structure.

To me the collapse had the quality of a firework "sparkler" burning its way down from the top. How can the lighter smaller less reinforced section crush the larger more reinforced section in a high speed symetrical manner??

It just isn't logical...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Sorry, I stated that in a totally confusing - well, let's just say WRONG way. It's accelerating slower than the acceleration due to gravity. It's a 33% to 50% increase in time over what you would get due to gravity alone. I'll try to find the thread where we worked the calculations on this.

Sorry for the confusing statement.


No need to apologize Valhall you always post very clear and informative posts. I consider you a large asset to ATS but in this case I have to disagree, I actually took gravity into account, if the building were free-falling I would expect that type of accerleration, but the only way this building could have fallen that fast is if that most of the load-bearing joints throughout the entire building were weakened before or during the attacks. That is the only way the accelleration rate could have increased that high of a percentage.

One more question for Mr. Mackey. Where is the Steel Core of the building?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Hope these explanations make sense.

It makes perfect sense now. You can't show the math because you dont have it.

Your theory is an excellent theory, and not proof. The math formulas all seem to be in place, however the numbers remain an estimate by all accounts.

While I have not been able to prove anything myself, the burden is not on me or 'the truthers'. the burden remains on the investigating team, which has as of yet not supplied sufficient evidence to support their story. I appreciate your effort to clear your countrymen of war crimes through science, but it appears thet the exppplanation is insufficient.

And while I agree that nowhere in your paper does it state that every core column collpsed simultaniously that is what would be required for the building to fall at a 90 deegree angle (perpendicular to the ground). If I am mistaken please correct me but I have drawn this information by a paper written by a Ph.D.

Should you have your paper peer reviewed and accpepted I shall concede providing that the same does not occur for any paper opposing your theory.

Good day and good luck, I feel that you will need it.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Jprophet, first of all his paper was created to dispute the paper written by Dr. Griffin (Debunking 911 Debunking). Doctor Griffin has received the paper and to date has not responded with any flaws within Mr. Mackeys paper.

Your claim is that if his paper is peer reviewed you will accept it? You also make claim that you read a PHD paper that lead you to your conclusion. Do you have a source to this paper? And was this paper peer reviewed? Please submit the source and the peer reviewed process the paper wnet through and I will make sure Mr. Mackey gets a copy.

Mr. Macky's paper is his proof. He backs it up with calculations and facts. Now, it would be up to you to find fault in his work. (Griff is going through it with an electron microscope!)

I'm not sure why you are wishing him luck.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Captain, you refer to the paper I do, so no need to cite again.

2nd, im not arguing about numbers. cite the source or argue in vain.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


J ~

I am having a hard time understand you. You claimed to have read a paper authored by a PHD. Is it Dr. Griffins paper you are refering to?

Thanks,

CO



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Valhall, the NIST researchers amazingly hold on to some faulty numbers :

I posted this some time ago:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(Btw, I still dare anybody to prove me wrong on that thread subject.)

I myself found out what collapse times NIST holds onto in the end.
So much for forgetting your own research.



Source :wtc.nist.gov...
( NIST FAQ 08-2006 )
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).


As I posted a long time ago that BBC video, I remember counting 12-plus seconds at least for the WTC 2 South tower collapse, not 9 seconds according to NIST.
I can't find that post back, searching is impossible slow.


Off-topic:
The ATS on-board Conspiracy Search function ( ucs.abovetopsecret.com... ) is not responding, and the Search function is depending on Google search techniques (by the way, just like the Conspiracy Search, I think.).

If this board ever wants to reach for the top echelons of most popular boards in the US, the admins have to create their own on-board search engine, with the help of saffy programmers, and not depend on Google for internal searches. Google is CIA infected. And funded by the CIA in the first place, I hope nobody really believe the story of 2 "geniusses" who had a great idea..
The CIA had a great idea and needed 2 young math students to cover up for them.

[edit on 30/9/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Btw, does NIST endorse the 10 seconds collapse, or the 14 seconds one?


I believe they endorce the 10 seconds.


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).



Edit: Looks like you beat me to it. Cheers all.
Source: wtc.nist.gov...


[edit on 9/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For all of you that do not know. On another thread, there was a link to a paper written by a NASA scientist. This paper was written to point out the errors made by Dr. Griffin. I offered to e-mail Mr. Mackey with errors they felt may have been wrong.


First and foremost, what grade of steel was used on the supports of the wtc in general and how hot does it need to be to melt it? I'd love a metallurgist to have a look at it.



[edit on 30-9-2007 by Knightshadowz]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Valhal,

Structurally - would you say that it might be possible to attribute extra time (+over Macro free fall acel.calcs) to the fact that I didnt blow the whole structure in one charge.

I am not asking if you believe in the probability of CD. Only the possibility that over average time 'could' come from say sequenced charges?

[edit on 30-9-2007 by scrapple]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Knightshadowz
 



Knightshadow ~

There was no claim of melted steel that atributed to the collapse of the WTC towers.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join