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.

 

The Physics of 911- NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey / video

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
This is part 1 of a scheduled 3 shows NASA Rocket Scientist, Ryan Mackey is doing on Hardfire.



In this first of three Hardfire programs, Ryan Mackey of NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs examines the physics of 9/11 and answers such questions as "Could a plane destroy the inner core columns of the World Trade Center?" Ronald Wieck hosts. Taped February 26, 2009.

video.google.com...


We did these shows as a kind of coda to the never-ending conspiracy arguments that now seem to be dying out. Instead of taking on any individual or specific wild claim, what I attempt to do instead is walk through the process of science, and show how anyone can apply this approach to any claim one might encounter. The scientific method is available to anyone, and need not be expensive, either. I attempt to demonstrate this by walking through two of the more common Truth Movement misconceptions from first principles.

-Ryan Mackey

forums.randi.org...


Google Video Link




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Cameron, I know you're not a 9/11 truther, but this is just another piece of evidence that further proves the no-planers are peddling disinfo.

I'm currently emailing "Hardfire" to ask for a correction. No-planers are not part of the 9/11 truth movement, nor does any research organization within the truth movement support the no-plane "theories" and most have banned the discussion of said "theories".


[edit on 14-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


I'm currently emailing "Hardfire" to ask for a correction.



Weik doesn't care!

Obviously they are using that as a straw man on purpose.

Mackey publicly proclaimed on Feb 1st 2009 in this post that he believes the research of CIT is the last stand for the truth movement.

He badly failed in a desperate attempt to refute the information in this thread and went running away with his tail between in his legs.

Luckily for him the person he was debating was banned over it because naturally they can't have their scientific guru looking so bad.

Of course Mackey has refused all calls to debate CIT direct.

In fact he has said said in the past how there is "nothing to debate".

But obviously that hasn't stopped him.

So instead of using his on-camera debut to address the information that HE has deemed the last stand, he used it to go after the easiest target (and without the burden of an opposing viewpoint!)




[edit on 14-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


It's all because "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" have "9/11 Truth" in their name. I don't know a single REAL research organization in the 9/11 truth movement that supports "Scholars" or the "theories" they peddle.

But this is the BS that real researchers in the 9/11 truth movement have to put up with. Blatant disinfo from "no-planers" and those like Wieck who don't even do a shred of research before they go on camera and consequently tarnish the credibility of the whole 9/11 truth movement over a disinfo cult that's been totally rejected by every research organization in the truth movement.

I have noticed that since I've been here, I've debunked every single thing the no-planers have tried to peddle and the only thing left for them was to attack. Not a single one of them could debate me with factual evidence. If you go looking at the no-plane threads and see how many of their posts were deleted by the mod/admin team for their attacks, it's laughable why they even continue. It's been silent from them for a couple weeks now. I think they ran out of "factual evidence" to post.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Please try to remain on topic. The thread is regarding the physics behind 911. Let's refrain from allowing this thread to digress into another "flyover" thread.


Thank you.

Please also note that there are three segments to this. I believe other issues (pertaining to the collapses) will be discussed.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Please try to remain on topic. The thread is regarding the physics behind 911.

This thread is about debunking no-planers which I do on a regular basis. I've also shown in many of their threads including this one that the no-plane "theory" is not supported anywhere in the real 9/11 truth movement.

In otherwords, this topic really has nothing to do with the real 9/11 truth movement, it just further nails shut the no-planer disinfo cult.



Originally posted by CameronFox
Please also note that there are three segments to this. I believe other issues (pertaining to the collapses) will be discussed.

And they will be addressed accordingly.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Bonez,

With all respect, I was not commenting on your posts, as they are on topic. As stated in my OP, there will be 2 more "lectures" regarding the towers.

Thank you for your input!



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 

Another desperate attempt to stop the truth movement, this is so ridiculous that is laughable.
Give it up cameronfox, no one is buying it.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderwomanUSA
 


This is a lecture on Physics... what are you afraid of? If it's the truth your looking for, this is a good place to start.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


what are you afraid of?


I am afraid of people who believes in all this garbage, and uses it as proof to support the government lie. As far as the truth, I have my own opinions to what really happened and it sure as heck does not support the government lie.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Hi, WTC realists !

That video shows that they don't know what they talk about !

As others said in this thread, "no planers" are a minority,
and on the brink of extinction. . . B-)

My question is : WHO are the owners of "Hardfire" ?
Hmmmm ? That could be a BIG clue !

Blue skies.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


No problem, Cameron. I know you weren't commenting on my posts, but I felt the need to respond anyways. We're all seeking the truth. Well, most of us anyways.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA


I am afraid of people who believes in all this garbage, and uses it as proof to support the government lie. As far as the truth, I have my own opinions to what really happened and it sure as heck does not support the government lie.




1. define what "garbage" you are speaking of.

2. Your second sentence is an oxymoron.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
These sorts of people really make me question their overall being. Who in their right mind makes such an effort to argue for or against the no-plane theory?

The whole notion is such an insult to one's intelligence, it doesn't even merit taking a look, let alone comment on it... pro or con.

All i can tell for sure is that for those who are in the know, have to be laughing their heads off at how dumb and helpless we all are in the face of such a ridiculous claim. The OS/BS is hard enough to take alone, then they pile it up higher and deeper still by feeding this no-plane joke.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


That's rather juvenile isn't it? Certainly, the topic deserves much better than that?




Originally posted by CameronFox
This is part 1 of a scheduled 3 shows NASA Rocket Scientist, Ryan Mackey is doing on Hardfire.

Please make more of an effort to provide your own commentary when you post videos and/or content from other sites. If you're sourcing external content, it's important to include your commentary, as indicated by this line right above the text input field in the new-thread form: "Please provide your own opinions when posting links or videos."

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Wow, another BS 'strawman argument' thread to spread more disinformation among the American people. Is the self-destructing 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY really worth all this subterfuge?

Who would have figured?




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Here's the email I just got back from Hardfire:


Thank you for watching the latest Hardfire program, and for taking the time to write. I am forwarding your note to Ron Wieck and Ryan Mackey.

As producer of these programs about 9/11, I take no position on any of the issues. Instead, I provide a forum in which all parties to the issues may present their views. I don't remember offhand to what extent your request has already been accommodated. I think Ron mentioned something about schisms within the truth movement. He put it quite bluntly as usual, in his opinion, as "crackpots disagreeing with other crackpots." He mentioned that some people within the truth movement view the no-planers as disinformation agents.

I hope you will watch the other two programs as they are posted. I hope to post the second program during the coming week, and the third program the following week.


[sarcasm]Sounds like an objective opinion to me, how about you?[/sarcasm]

[edit on 15-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Here are some email exchanges between Ron, Ryan and others regarding the above video...

It appears all Ryan knows how to do is lecture on absurd topics, instead of debating actual data provided by the govt.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   
OOPS

[edit on 15-3-2009 by mrwiffler]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Wow, another BS 'strawman argument' thread to spread more disinformation among the American people.


Spreston, can you please explain why this is a strawman? Mr. Mackey goes into detail regarding the impact of the airplanes and the damage they cause.

This discussion is not only about can a plane impact a steel building, but what damage it causes.

I think it is obvious you did not watch it.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join