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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
It appears all Ryan knows how to do is lecture on absurd topics, instead of debating actual data provided by the govt.


It "appears" you didn't watch his lecture. Bob Balsamo decided to label it a "one sided debate."

Then when the host of this video asked where Mackey had erred in the video.... your PFT members fell pretty silent. All Bob had to say was Mr. Mackey looked like he was 20 years old. Yeah, that is a totally relevant statement.

This is typical behavior from PFT.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]




posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
It "appears" you didn't watch his lecture. Bob Balsamo decided to label it a "one sided debate."


The very definition of a lecture is teaching about a subject. Mackey is disproving NPT without an opponent ie. arguing theory. That is debate. And it appears, one-sided.

Mackey, you and a few others claim its a "lecture" in order to hand waive the fact there isnt an opponent. Its not a lecture. They start with a claim, and attempt to disprove such a claim. That is debate. Try wiki.



Then when the host of this video asked where Mackey had erred in the video.... your PFT members fell pretty silent.


Wrong.

P4T appears to be pretty vocal. Anytime you would like to retract your inaccurate statement, let us know.

Here's a hint, P4T does not endorse NPT. So P4T see no reason to refute Mackey's claims or math in the video. However, P4T has proven Mackey wrong on numerous occassions regarding other topics. Click the link.


All Bob had to say was Mr. Mackey looked like he was 20 years old. Yeah, that is a totally relevant statement.


Actually, i think Bob claimed Mackey looked 14. Knowing the arrogance of Mackey, he probably takes that as a compliment.




[edit on 15-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757


The very definition of a lecture is teaching about a subject. Mackey is disproving NPT without an opponent ie. arguing theory. That is debate. And it appears, one-sided.


Here is your chance....what did he get wrong


Mackey, you and a few others claim its a "lecture" in order to hand waive the fact there isnt an opponent. Its not a lecture. They start with a claim, and attempt to disprove such a claim. That is debate. Try wiki.


He speaks of the scientific model... again... what is wrong in his lecture?



P4T appears to be pretty vocal. Anytime you would like to retract your inaccurate statement, let us know.


As soon as you point out the errors he made, I will.


Here's a hint, P4T does not endorse NPT. So P4T see no reason to refute Mackey's claims or math in the video. However, P4T has proven Mackey wrong on numerous occassions regarding other topics. Click the link.


PFT does not support anything... remember...they dont have a theory.




Actually, i think Bob claimed Mackey looked 14. Knowing the arrogance of Mackey, he probably takes that as a compliment.



Yes he did say 14 in his e-mail exchange.

That is what you got right. Funny that's all Bob could find wrong with him.

Now, can you please point out the errors Mr. Mackey made in his first video?

I don't care that you are upset that he wont debate Mr. Balsamo.

If you would like to read the material he will be going over, the following is a link to the materials.
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Please feel free to point out the errors in any of the slides or part 1. His e-mail address has been made public, he is pretty good at getting back to people that are serious about learning or have legitimate questions.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Speaking of Mr. Mackey, due to my email that I sent to Hardfire, they forwarded it to Mr. Mackey and Mr. Mackey sent me a nice little email.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Hard to tell which one of these two clowns is less credible. Maybe I need to take a Physics class to find out.

Mackey states that the NASA space program has seen no benefit from 911. Yeah, like he would tell you if he knew that it had benefited. He also states that he is doing this research on his own time. Yeah, right! If he came to another conclusion, he wouldn't even have a job anymore.

As for the other whackjob, did I hear him state that the military has not benefited from 911? This is the kind of jacka** who calls everyone he disgrees with a crackpot. A couple of minutes of watching these two liars is more than any sane person can handle.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Speaking of Mr. Mackey, due to my email that I sent to Hardfire, they forwarded it to Mr. Mackey and Mr. Mackey sent me a nice little email.


Well? are you going to share it with us?

Thanks,

CF



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
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



I guess the scientific method was too expensive for NIST?

BTW, a "systems safety manager" does not equal "rocket scientist".

Valhall is a "rocket scientist" as she is a mechanical/aerospace engineer.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Hard to tell which one of these two clowns is less credible.



As for the other whackjob,



This is the kind of jacka** .....



A couple of minutes of watching these two liars


Thank you for the informative post Sphinx.



Maybe I need to take a Physics class to find out.


Great idea, then maybe you will be able to watch more than 2 minutes of this video.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Well? are you going to share it with us?


I'll share a small part:


The point of the lecture was not to take on or validate "no plane" theories, which I agree are ridiculous. It was an example. You were probably already in agreement with the idea that aircraft can crash through steel, but perhaps unable to put numbers to it. After going through this example, the exact same technique can be applied to ANY physics question, regardless of its significance to any given faction of the Truth Movement.


The rest was more personal and I'll respond on my own.


[edit on 15-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


BTW, a "systems safety manager" does not equal "rocket scientist".

Valhall is a "rocket scientist" as she is a mechanical/aerospace engineer.


He works in the jet propulsion laboratory. You're not typically one to get into semantics Griff. Valhall still have ghosts walking around her house?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


I'll share a small part:


Thanks for sharing Bonez



The rest was more personal and I'll respond on my own.




Understood.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
He works in the jet propulsion laboratory. You're not typically one to get into semantics Griff.


All I'm saying is that Ryan would probably appreciate not being labeled what he is not (if he is not). Nothing more, nothing less. I know I would.


Valhall still have ghosts walking around her house?


Why not ask her?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   


All I'm saying is that Ryan would probably appreciate not being labeled what he is not (if he is not). Nothing more, nothing less. I know I would.


Well, let Ryan speak for himself. He has stated at Jref that he is a "rocket scientist."


I don't really care about the poltergeists in Val's house. I was being a jerk.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Well, let Ryan speak for himself. He has stated at Jref that he is a "rocket scientist."


If that is what he calls himself, then who am I to say any different? My bad.

It's just that, as an example, in the architectural field, one can not call one self an "architect" unless one is an AIA. Even with a Doctorate in architecture. So semantics, yes, but important semantics in some fields.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


It's just that, as an example, in the architectural field, one can not call one self an "architect" unless one is an AIA. Even with a Doctorate in architecture. So semantics, yes, but important semantics in some fields.


If you choose to become a licensed architect, you have to meet the requirements of the state you reside in. The AIA is only part of that(it is combined with NCARB). I believe you have to do the Intern Development Program. You also have to do other "training units."

Bottom line, I think its NCARB does the certification not the AIA.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Yeah, NCARB is their certification group. My point is still that without the AIA, an "architect" can not call themself an "architect" until all these criteria have been met (which are 9 individual exams...yikes...glad I only had to take 2
).

But, we've strayed off topic. I'll be interested to see the other 2 videos.





[edit on 3/15/2009 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by _BoneZ_

"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."





You really don't get it do you bonez. I dont give a toss about the truth movement. I dont care whether it hurts it, or if your not alowed to post about it on your carefully selected theory website.

You also have failed to debunk any of the theories regarding the NPT.
Posting a video with a guy saying its all rubbish is hardly evidence.

So please stop saying its hurting/not recognized by the truth movement.

Its boring and we really couldn't care less.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
It appears that no-one has any issues with what he said in relation to the actual physics, except for the fact he dared to say it. I'd have preferred more time being spent on just the physics myself.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Are all three out now?
I have been waiting to watch them all at once.
So that I do not have to watch them over as each new one comes out.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join