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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
PART II IS UP NOW


Google Video Link


I have not been able to view as of yet.




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Just watched it. It's just a continuation of the first one, still talking mostly about NPT.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I thought they were going to cover the Physics of the towere collapses too?
or did I read wrong..



posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


He spoke about the damage that was done to towers as well. You can only do so much in 30 minutes (about 24 actually)



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Some points noted on Mackey's second "No-debate".. debate... without an opponent.



08:06 - Mackety explains an NIST Chart regarding pressure impulse to core columns based on aircraft velocity. Mackety also explains this chart does not take into account the impact to the perimeter columns. Mackety fails to recognize and/or acknowledge decelleration due to perimeter impact. Conclusion - misleading, intentional disinformation.
08:34 - Wieck assumes "slicing through the building is the only thing we could expect to see". Wieck fails to notice Mackety's obvious omission that the perimeter, combined with core columns, disintergrated the aircraft. Conclusion - Wieck hasnt a clue except to stroke his bias.
09:18 - Slide fails to disclose core column "impact" speed.
09:43 - Wieck calls attention to core column impact sans velocity disclosure or source.
09:54 - Mackety explains the above noted (by moving the core column to the perimeter), but Wieck fails to understand. Mackety continues deception through a small disclaimer.
10:45 - Mackety explains, "We come up with a guess". Conclusion, Mackety hasnt signed up for the Armed services based on a "guess", but many others have died based on a "guess", according to Mackety.
11:30 - Mackety - "If you're going under 270 fps, you're probably not going to break columns" Mackety does not explain which columns, perimeter, or core. However, the slide does. Mackety also does not provide solid velocity values for core column impact.
I'm going to stop there as the disinformation is just so overwhelming for one sitting combined with the fact the video is atrocious with respect to editing, and the Mackety/Wieck combo are better than any OTC/Rx sleeping pill.


More that Mackey got wrong here...

Watch host Ron Wieck dodge and weave in above link.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


Why would anyone take the word of a NASA rocket scientist who specializes in rocketry, as believable information about buildings and structural engineering and the weaknesses of said buildings when impacted by a large passenger jet filled with fuel at over 300 mph?

Since when did NASA rocket scientists become experts in structural engineering of buildings? That is like expecting a gas engine mechanic to know the intricate details of brain surgury.

Oh, I see...its because of those 4 letters...isnt it..NASA.

Never A Sraight Answer.

In this case...Not A Significant Answer from a rocket scientist trying to play structural engineer.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Why would anyone take the word of a NASA rocket scientist who specializes in rocketry, as believable information about buildings and structural engineering and the weaknesses of said buildings when impacted by a large passenger jet filled with fuel at over 300 mph?


Mackey is not a "Rocket Scientist". He is.. (strike that...).. claims to be... a Systems Safety Engineer. Which means he may as well be a janitor at NASA when it comes to structural engineering or actual Flight Data. Mackeys' lack of willingness to debate any opponent confirms such a fact.

Edit: Strike noted above


[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RockHound757
 


He wrote a 300 page white paper, Bob. He was willing to debate Dr. Griffin. Mr. Griffin refused to call.

You on the other hand refused to debate Mark Roberts a couple years ago... am I correct?


Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
He wrote a 300 page white paper, Bob. He was willing to debate Dr. Griffin. Mr. Griffin refused to call.


Who is Bob? Are you accusing me of using a sock?

300 pages from Mackey to refute someone he thinks is "nuts"? Now thats nuts!


You on the other hand refused to debate Mark Roberts a couple years ago... am I correct?


If you are referring to Rob refusing to debate Mark Roberts, you're wrong... ask Ron Wieck perhaps? Need a link?

Mark Roberts did everything in his power to get the Air America show cancelled and refused debate. Read his site, he doesnt deny it.

Roberts is a joke and still has lies on his site saying Rob is an "ex-commercial pilot". Anyone who visits faa.gov will readily realize the lies told by Mark Roberts. Mark is his own worst enemy.

This has all been told to you before CF. Why do you always fail to remember? No matter, i'll keep repeating when you get backed into your corner and have nothing else.



Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.


It appears CF doesnt know how to use hidemyass.com.... But spends almost everyday on the net? Naive comes to mind. Perhaps paranoid?

Meanwhile, other forums require your full name and zip code to register (ahem.. JREF?). And then when you back their regulars into a corner, they claim you are a sock, the mods suspend, and then require 3 forms of "photoshopped" ID, Utility Bills.. etc.. to continue to post.


CF... really now. You can do better than that.. no?


Weak CF.. very weak...

[edit on 22-3-2009 by RockHound757]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockHound757
Who is Bob? Are you accusing me of using a sock?

300 pages from Mackey to refute someone he thinks is "nuts"? Now thats nuts!


I do not know your first name, you write a lot like Mr. Balsamo. I hope you don't find it insulting. If so, will RH be acceptable?

Dr. Griffin requested the paper, agreed to a debate, yet would not call into the show to debate him. Apparently Hardfire has quite primitive technology that required Dr. Griffin to call in.

If someone wrote a 300 page white paper refuting a large amount of your work, would you want to set the record straight? Would you stand up for yourself? Mr. Griffin, as well as the rest of the truth movement have been relativity silent regarding Mr. Mackey's white paper.




If you are referring to Rob refusing to debate Mark Roberts, you're wrong... ask Ron Wieck perhaps? Need a link?


Your link is to a single post that you have in fact linked to in the past.



Mark Roberts did everything in his power to get the Air America show cancelled and refused debate. Read his site, he doesnt deny it.

Roberts is a joke and still has lies on his site saying Rob is an "ex-commercial pilot". Anyone who visits faa.gov will readily realize the lies told by Mark Roberts. Mark is his own worst enemy.



Back in a corner huh?

This thread is supposed to be about the Physics of 911- a video Ryan Mackey did on his own time to assist those that are interested in learning about the scientific model.

I ask that you start an "Anti-Mark Roberts" thread if you feel the need to bash him. I will be more than happy to join you there and discuss how right or wrong he is.

In the mean time, i will encourage others to read the letter Mark Roberts sent to Richard Greene of Air America in his attempt to not allow you on his show.

For example:

Mr. Balsamo calls flight 77 pilots Chick Burlingame and David Charlebois cowards:


"If hes trying to take over my ship. .and all he has is a boxcutter? Im gonna grab my crash axe and chop him up... while tossing fire extingushers[sic] to passengers. .you? Or do you cower and say.. "Please dont cut me Mr. Big Bad Terrorist"
- Rob Balsamo





It appears CF doesnt know how to use hidemyass.com.... But spends almost everyday on the net? Naive comes to mind. Perhaps paranoid?


I am well aware of using it. It's just a shame that the first time I clicked on your website forum to read some posts, Rob Balsamo revealed what city I was in and what street I was on. (close to it)

I don't work for JREF, nor do I make the rules there. Personally, I have never been asked for any type of identification.

Now, can we please get back to the OP?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Why did he do these videos?


The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.

It isn't a question of stomping any given truther's individual pet claim. This could go on forever, and even when we do, it has no effect.

Instead, again, I am giving you the tools to debunk any claim. That is the point of the lecture. It's like Ron says at the outset: He knew the idea of aircraft crashing through made sense, but he couldn't prove it or put numbers to it. This process does that for you.

In going through that discussion, it makes sense to present an expose on claims that (nearly) everyone is already comfortable with. You don't just jump in and tackle something difficult. You practice first.

Even though the "no planer" example is only believed by the weirdest of the weird, the discussion nonetheless addresses misconceptions held by numerous people, including the same Truth Movement supporters who claim to be up in arms about no-planers. For instance, what is the value of evidence and precedent. How do you construct a model, and why. How do you establish scientific fact without having pieces in your hand. I've seen any number of people here get confused on those points.

That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.


forums.randi.org...


[edit on 22-3-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.


God forbid we wouldn't want the whole world knowing a person is a government agent ...................

Edit: I edited out the off topic material.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.


God forbid we wouldn't want the whole world knowing a person is a government agent or better yet, someone who has multiple accounts that were started within a month of each other when 2 of those accounts have been banned...............................


Yeah Griff, the same government that orchestrated the most massive conspiracy in the history of man is unable to covertly access a website.

I am not now or EVER been a member at Pilots4911Truth.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox


The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.


I don't care if Mr. Mackey is 100% accurate in everything he says. He says it with such vitriol, angst, and "hollier-than-thou" attitude that I have no desire to "learn" anything from him.

What an ass.


That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.


And again I'll ask Mr. Mackey: What of NIST and the "scientific process"? You know, the one where it states quite clearly that:


Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


en.wikipedia.org...

I have bolded, underlined and italicized the things that NIST has FAILED to do.

So much for Mr. Mackey's scientific method eh?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I don't understand what the skeptics are specifically trying to debunk. Can someone sum it up for me?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
The 3rd and final Hardfire show has been released. I have put all three on this post.

These shows are learning tools for those that are interested in the Physics of 911.

Part One: Intro to the Scientific Method, quantification, applying to WTC impacts

Google Video Link
:


Part II, finishing WTC impacts, Q&A on AA 175

Google Video Link



Explaining how and why to model, simple model of WTC collapses, scaling

Google Video Link


Besides Ron trying to pimp his mugs (reminded me of Rob Balsamo and his clocks and barbecue aprons) the shows were very informative.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Besides Ron trying to pimp his mugs (reminded me of Rob Balsamo and his clocks and barbecue aprons) the shows were very informative.


But, I doubt you'll follow Ron around and hound him about it like you do to Rob though.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Ron doesn't sell snake oil.


Little bit of a difference, don't you think? Now, let's stay on topic.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Ron doesn't sell snake oil.



... says the man who started the topic of the mug... and who admits not being able to debate topics such as P4T FDR analysis due to lack of knowledge... yet P4T seems to grow with peers.

Some highlights posted with respect to "Part 3".


Part 3 has now been posted to google video. Here are some simple notes fatal to Mackey's presentation...


  • Ron plugs the mug. Priceless, especially when "troofers" are chastized when raising funds to keep operating. Conculsion - those who make excuses for the govt story will continue to attack the support structure of any group/organization attempting to raise funds while researching 9/11, but let Hardfire/Mackey slide on their shameless plugs. Read: Hypocrisy.
  • 04:07 - Mackey, "Our model is very simple, we are going to leave out alot of very important things...", such as core columns in his illustration.
  • Mackey assumes upper floor mass remains constant, only to increase mass on the way down by adding floors - Conclusion = Logical Fallacy, deceptive.. the upper floors (as well as lower floors) were shedding mass outside floor surface area during collapse. Model is flawed.
Example: Upper floor Mass disintgrates/shed mass outwards as lower floors remain intact.

.




  • Mackey, "You should 'tweak' your model". Conclusion - Mackey has been caught many times "tweaking" his models towards his bias, not to mention flat out wrong.
  • 19:55 - Blatant lie from Mackey. NIST does not feel "impact damage" contributed to WTC7 Collapse.
  • Mackey claims his opinion that fires were likely cause. Mackey unfamilar with OSHA Class A Skyscrapers. Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers. Jet fuel is not an excuse as seen in the Edna Cintron photos. Fires were not "large" as claimed by Mackey.
  • Mackey completely omitted WTC 7 from entire series. Just as the 9/11 Commission.
  • End of show - Ron admits the show is about debate - not lecture. Claims "No one will step up for debate". Blatant lie.
There are many more logical fallacies and lies told by Mackey throughout Part 3. But those are the highlights.


Source

As a side note and since CF loves to bash Balsamo daily, it appears Balsamo treats Ron Wieck better than Mark Roberts ever did.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I went to the JREF thread where Mackey seems more comfortable discussing his presentation (while also attempting to suppress the only knowledgeable dissenting voice on the forum that hasnt been banned/suspended)...

Someone may want to inform Mackey that the aircraft which allegedly impacted WTC 2 was reported as United Airlines.. not American.

"AA175", "Aircraft of 10's of thousands of tons"....


Attention to detail, not a strong suit of Mackey or JREFer's i see... especially when referencing EA990. Hopefully he'll learn soon enough... ?

Edit: Typo

[edit on 26-3-2009 by RockHound757]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join