The Physics of 911- NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey / video

Originally posted by RockHound757
Some highlights posted with respect to "Part 3".

Captain Bob has that audacity to question the writings of Mr. Mackey, and he can't even spell.

Bob?

chastized ? no sir... it's chastised

Conculsion ? no sir: conclusion

disintgrates ? no Captain: disintegrates

unfamilar ?no Bob: unfamiliar

alot ? no Robert: a lot

The rest of the laughable post by Bob.... yeah... laughable.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by CameronFox]

Awesome, loks like we have a persinal spell cheker for Balsamo's typo's.

I'll bi shure to let him no that yuwe r unable to debate da fakts and wuld rathur fokus on typos. Tanks fer yure korrection. We mite git rite on it.

Now when will you correct Mackey and AA175?

(hint, thats not a typo. That is Mackey lack of attention to detail.)

Better yet... dont korect him. Leave it!

Anytime you would like to come over to P4T as a personal spell checker for posts, feel free. It seems to be the only thing you're good at as its clear you are unable to debate facts.

And who is Bob? Again CF, are you accusing me of using a sock when you already admitted you didnt know my first name?

CF, do you smoke alot of drugs? You contradict yourself alot. Its no surprise you cannot recognize a typo when you see one and instead make a (poor) attempt at a rebuttal based on such typos, since its clear you are unable to debate facts.

Now i'll korect CF...

Originally posted by CameronFox

chastized ? no sir... it's chastised

Z... S... tomato... tomAto. US.. UK. Really... is this all you got?

Conculsion ? no sir: conclusion

Yep, looks like someone typed to fast. Never seen letters swapped before huh CF? Newbie...

disintgrates ? no Captain: disintegrates

Oh my.. .someone forgot an "E". Oh the horror!

CF, you're weak.

unfamilar ?no Bob: unfamiliar

Looks like another letter swap from typing too fast. Unfortunately CF doesnt recognize such typos unless he cannot debate facts.

alot ? no Robert: a lot

No CF, its "alot". Pick up your diktionary.

The rest of the laughable post by Bob.... yeah... laughable.

Whenever you want to address the facts posted instead of focusing on typos, let us know and we'll perhaps stop laughing at you.

Originally posted by RockHound757
Awesome, loks like we have a persinal spell cheker for Balsamo's typo's.

Well if you're going to pick on someone for :

(hint, thats not a typo. That is Mackey lack of attention to detail.)

I would think you should do the same.

And who is Bob? Again CF, are you accusing me of using a sock when you already

Bob is Bob Balsamo... the man who your sourced. I was not accusing you of anything RH.


[edit on 26-3-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I never met anyone who believed or endorsed NPT in my time with the 9/11 truth movement.
We knew than as now that CD was what happened.
As a matter a fact we all used to say that they were all disinfo.
So funny this "NASA scientist" would say this is what 9/11 truth is all about because it really makes me question how well researched he is.

I would agree that this is simply a straw argument to make the movement look bad.

Too bad that that it’s not going to work.
Too bad that their arrogance was so great that it screwed up their plans.




[edit on 3/26/2009 by samhouston1886]

Originally posted by RockHound757

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[sic] when raising funds to keep operating. Conculsion[sic] - 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.

The host of a show where he is employed was asked to pimp a mug and you call the GUEST on the show a hypocrite?

You call this "fatal" to his presentation?

04:07 - Mackey, "Our model is very simple, we are going to leave out alot [sic] of very important things...", such as core columns in his illustration.

Mr. Mackey was showing a "simple" model. He also stated that it was being left out. You quoted him as such.

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.

So, please tell me, the mass that is not shredded, where does it go?

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.

Put it up here... I will contact Mackey myself and ask him.

19:55 - Blatant lie from Mackey. NIST does not feel "impact damage" contributed to WTC7 Collapse.

Didn't the impact of the collapsing skyscraper start the fires?

The rest of the list is a mess.

Mackey claims his opinion that fires were likely cause. Mackey unfamilar[sic] with OSHA Class A Skyscrapers.

Mackey is not the only scientist that feels this way.

Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers.

I have worked in several skyscrapers. Do you know that paint thinner is a highly flammable substance? Wood stains? Toilet bowl cleaners?

Jet fuel is not an excuse as seen in the Fires were not "large" as claimed by Mackey.

your link was not working...not that it matters. The fires in ROBS opinion were not large.

Mackey completely omitted WTC 7 from entire series. Just as the 9/11 Commission.

Did he talk about WTC 5 or 6 ? Did he talk about stock options? Did he talk about silverstein? Mackey was not recreating the 911 Commission report.

End of show - Ron admits the show is about debate - not lecture. Claims "No one will step up for debate". Blatant lie.

This is fatal to MAckey's presentation... how? (i think the reference was made to a member at JREF. I could be mistaken though.)




[edit on 26-3-2009 by CameronFox]


Mod edit: Fixed quote, missing /.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Hal9000]

OK guys, that's enough of the off topic posts.

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

Of course anyone who believes there was a cover up is a "crack pot". Thats one of theanti-conspirisists main tactics. The things they of course dont talk about is the molten metal and Steven Jones work. Plus building 7 wasnt hit by a plane and it fell at free fall speed as well. People need to wake up before its too late.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by TruthSeeker42]

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by samhouston1886



So funny this "NASA scientist" would say this is what 9/11 truth is all about because it really makes me question how well researched he is.

I would agree that this is simply a straw argument to make the movement look bad.

Too bad that that it’s not going to work.
Too bad that their arrogance was so great that it screwed up their plans.

He did not say any such thing. I suggest you watch the shows.





[edit on 26-3-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox


Will do so and get back to you..

posted by samhouston1886

I never met anyone who believed or endorsed NPT in my time with the 9/11 truth movement.

We knew than as now that CD was what happened.

As a matter a fact we all used to say that they were all disinfo.

So funny this "NASA scientist" would say this is what 9/11 truth is all about because it really makes me question how well researched he is.

I would agree that this is simply a straw argument to make the movement look bad.

Too bad that that it’s not going to work.
Too bad that their arrogance was so great that it screwed up their plans.

(bolding by me)

Neither have I. NPT at the WTC is a 'theory' put out by disinformation specialists from the other side. NASA 'janitor' Mackey is just following through with the standard 'strawman argument' which he will beat down again and again and again unopposed with NOBODY on the other side of the debate. And CF will continue smirking and reposting the 'strawman argument' again and again and again.

Originally posted by SPreston


Neither have I. NPT at the WTC is a 'theory' put out by disinformation specialists from the other side. NASA 'janitor' Mackey is just following through with the standard 'strawman argument' which he will beat down again and again and again unopposed with NOBODY on the other side of the debate. And CF will continue smirking and reposting the 'strawman argument' again and again and again.

You have shown that you did not even watch any of the video's. You have also show you did not read my post in this thread regarding the reasoning behind his lecture. This comes as no surprise SPreston.

You then choose to discredit Mr. Mackey by suggesting that he is a "janitor" at NASA. Being a janitor is a very hard, honest living. It is not what he does at NASA.

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT). He has authored sixteen NASA Tech Briefs and Technical Reports, and received two United States Patents for his original research. He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation. Yes, he is one heck of a janitor.

I ask you kindly SPreston, to please watch the video's. They, you can come back and explain why you think learning something is a strawman.

posted by CameronFox

You then choose to discredit Mr. Mackey by suggesting that he is a "janitor" at NASA. Being a janitor is a very hard, honest living. It is not what he does at NASA.

In the 1st video, Ronald Wieck states that Mackey would be accused of being a shill for the Military Industrial Complex. He then asks Mackey if his industry (id est the Military Industrial Complex) benefitted from 9-11. Was Mackey also a CPA for the military? That was the highlight of the show other than the 'strawman argument' of NPT.

9-11 Truthers do not deny that a 150+ ton 500+ mph aircraft could and did penetrate the structural steel exterior structure of both towers. Of course the towers did not fall at that time and thus the aircraft did not knock them down. Fire did not bring them down because the welded frames of the towers, including the powerful core structures were gigantic heat sinks, drawing the heat away from concentrating in any particular place, and preventing fire from weakening the towers or melting any steel. Any melting of steel was accomplished with thermate/thermite/super thermite or an unknown device.

Demolition explosives or an unknown explosive device brought down each tower, and the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing right before our eyes, with or without Ryan Mackey.

An 'Integrated Systems Health Manager' is not a rocket scientist.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Ryan Mackey is not a rocket scientist.

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT).

911myths.com...

[edit on 3/27/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
hat was the highlight of the show other than the 'strawman argument' of NPT.

I figured that's all you would get out of it. Again, not surprising.

9-11 Truthers do not deny that a 150+ ton 500+ mph aircraft could and did penetrate the structural steel exterior structure of both towers.

What about the core?

.....and preventing fire from weakening the towers or melting any steel. Any melting of steel was accomplished with thermate/thermite/super thermite or an unknown device.

when you can't explain it with science...you create science fiction. I thought all your other threads you claimed massive explosives to eject steel beams laterally? Was it a mixture of therm*te and Hush a bombs?

Demolition explosives or an unknown explosive device brought down each tower, and the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is self-destructing right before our eyes, with or without Ryan Mackey.

Oh! there they are.... Silent demolition explosives and science fiction super duper secret bombs.

An 'Integrated Systems Health Manager' is not a rocket scientist.

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Ryan Mackey is not a rocket scientist.

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft. He is a graduate of the University of California, Santa Cruz and the Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories at the California Institute of Technology (GALCIT).

ROCKET:
any of a type of jet-propulsion device carrying either solid or liquid propellants that provide both the fuel and oxidizer required for combustion. The term is also commonly applied to any of various vehicles, including firework skyrockets, guided missiles, and spacecraft launch vehicles, driven by such a propulsive device.

www.britannica.com...

DO you know what Project Constellation is Spreston? Ryan Mackey has been making contributions to this as well:

NASA plans to develop a host of spacecraft and booster vehicles in order to replace the Space Shuttle and return astronauts to the Moon and then possibly send them to Mars as well. Currently, NASA is in the process of designing two boosters, the Ares I and Ares V. Ares I will have the sole function of launching mission crews into orbit. Ares V will be designed to launch other hardware for use on missions and will have a heavier lift capacity than the Ares I booster. In addition to these two boosters, NASA is designing a set of other spacecraft for use during Constellation. These will include the Orion crew capsule, the Earth Departure Stage and the Altair lunar lander.

www.nasa.gov...

Might I suggest you write to him to voice your displeasure's in his NOT being a Rocket Scientist? Then you can accuse him of his "strawman arguments."


[edit on 27-3-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox




NASA has about as much chance of placing men on Mars as I have of marrying the next Miss America; with or without Ryan Mackey. It is most doubtful that NASA has the necessary technology to place men on the moon or to do anything without huge blunders and cost overruns. Maybe they should ask for help from the Japanese or French rocket scientists. In return the French could capitalize on Freedom Fries and the Japanese could purchase the remainder of America.

It does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend NASA. Smoke and mirrors; it is all a gigantic shell game to extort more blood (money) out of the American turnips (people). You should be a NASA rocket scientist CF. You would fit right in and your BS could raise millions.

reply to post by SPreston


That's your response? A bunch of laughing smiley faces.

Once again, not surprised. You have once again proven with great consistency the lack of substance in your posts.

reply to post by SPreston

Fire did not bring them down because the welded frames of the towers, including the powerful core structures were gigantic heat sinks, drawing the heat away from concentrating in any particular place, and preventing fire from weakening the towers or melting any steel. Any melting of steel was accomplished with thermate/thermite/super thermite or an unknown device.

Welded frames? SPreston, have you even studied the way the WTCs were built? At all? Because right now, you have just shown your ignorance on how the WTCs were built with that first line. The exterior columns were bolted together, with four bolts on upper sections, and 6 bolts on lower sections. Each module was three stories tall and had three columns welded to three spandral plates. The bolts attached from the cap plates that were attached at both ends of the column module. The only spots where they were welded together in addition to the bolts, was at the base. At the horizontal connections, they were also bolted together, except for certain areas like the base and the mechanical floors. These areas were assisted with welding to increase their strength. The whole enitre exterior was NOT, I repeat, NOT welded together.
As to the floor trusses. They were connected to the exterior and interior columns with two 5/8" bolts at the top of the truss and two 1" bolts attached at the dampeners at the bottom of the truss connecting to the exterior columns (not the interior). The bolts were attached to welded seats on the exterior column, and the interior columns. The trusses themselves were most suseptable to heat, especially if fireproofing was degraded or removed in the impacts. They would have heated up but the "heat sink" would have been only able to do so much because all the heat would have to transfer through a small seat and bolts holding together the floor truss to the columns on each end. and this would not have been enough space to remove the heat to the columns. Had there been a greater amount of surface area of the trusses up agianst the column, it would be a different story. You really should read up on how a heat sink works and what are the limitations.
For the 1 billionth time, the steel did NOT have to melt to fail. In fact it did NOT melt at all during the fires. Steel can and has failed from fire alone. Therm*te does not cut horizontally. Thermite does not cut cleanly. I thought the Mythbusters episode of when they placed 2,000lbs of thermite on a truck, and it barely cut through the whole thing, would be enough to debunk the nonsense. But i guess you are not interested in the details. You see, the devil is in the details. Sure you can make an outlandish claim, but be ready to explain it when challenged by others who know a little more on the subject. Therm*te is unpredictable, it burns unevenly, and it wont just cut through perfectly. It will slosh, spill over, or puddle on ignition. You cannnot control where its going to go and how its going to do it. Once again, Mythbusters showed this to great affect, ie NO clean cut through the truck, even though it was placed evenly on top of the truck and ignited.
And you claiming that it could have been therm*te, nano-therm*te, super duper-double-secret-micro-nano-teeny-tiny therm*te, is only speculation and holds as much water as me claiming it was invisible fairies using magic pixydust in conjunction with the little gremlins that live insde all skyscrapers of America causing problems that brought down the WTCs. Why not? You didnt see them did you? They didnt want to be seen. They were invisible. But how do you know they werent there? I say they were because they must exist! Prove me wrong. Prove me wrong that invisible fairies with pixy dust and gremlins dont exist in buildings. After all, during WWII bomber and fighter pilots swore that when something went wrong in their plane, it was those darn gremlins that did it. So there you go, my arguement is just as plausible. Gremilins and invisible faires brought down the WTCs.

[edit on 3/28/2009 by GenRadek]