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: 9
68
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Well you may be right but according to the NIST report and the seismic data, they did fall under 10 seconds.


NIST says on their FAQ that they only measured the time between the first debris impacting the ground, and the seismic activity pretty much coming to a halt. I think they point this time out to try to justify the earlier 9-12 second times that the 9/11 Commission etc. ignorantly used, but they don't seem to try to assert that these times actually correspond to "collapse times" or anything like that. Just the time between debris starting to hit the ground, and finishing up hitting the ground.




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
LDEO also held off on releasing WTC7's seismic records until a couple of days after the towers', as if there was some hesitancy on showing it to the public.

NIST later contracted LDEO during its investigation, and LDEO ended up changing the times it gave for seismic events supposedly created by the impacts, fudging them by a few seconds (years AFTER they had been recorded).

These were the groups "proving" no bombs were used.

They were fudging the facts (data taken straight off their machines) to make them fit "no bombs were used". Same as NIST did with its physical and computer tests.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Thank You Ryan Mackey and CaptianObvious for providing a layman such a thorough description of the events of 9/11. In the past 6 months of "debunking" CTs as an imagery analyst (with 22+ years experience and no knowledge of physics and structural engineering, I have to say the most plausible/reasonable explanations to the WTC collapses were provided by these 2 individuals. I may never figure out CTs who consistently distort your analysis. Please don't let the select few CTs distract you from providing reasonable/scientific explanations to the tragic events of 9/11. You provide a great service to the masses! Many of the CTs will not accept these explanations/analysis, but others will. I have bookmarked you both for futher research. Mr Mackey; I have one reviewed 20 pages to date but I am quite impressed. I will never question your analysis because I have no experience in structural engineering. I may be called out as "sheeple" but I don't care. I was reading Dr Griffin's book and now have lost interest in going beyond Chapter 3. He tends to beat a dead horse with speculation. Thank you again!



new topics
 
68
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join