Questions for Ryan Mackey NASA Scientist: Was he paid govt dis-info?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Valhall

 

If you did in fact read his papers and in fact had issues with it, I trust you would question him. If your e-mail to him is sincere, I assure you his reponse will be just as sincere.

We do what's important to us.

Why do you keep acting like you're not reading my words? I'm not talking about his paper...why do you keep bringing up his paper? I asked if he had bothered to respond to the points enumerated in the thread discussing the NIST letter. I didn't say anything about his paper.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Sorry.... What NIST letter are you talking about?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
If you have your facts to back you up...you wont have a problem. If not... you will get called on EVERYTHING you post.

Why would that be any different over there than over here, if Mr. Mackey signed up here?

If he feels like answering questions, maybe it's better he post here. It's not like any of us are going to him looking for answers. None of us are going to join JREF. If it's as nice of a place as ATS, then there's no difference, and like I said, we're not going to him.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
HUGE difference Griff .. come on now! He used UL letter head and sent the memo not ONLY to NIST but to several Conspiracy Theory web sites. Waterboy was and still is an idiot.

I really don't see it as that huge. Ryan Mackey used his NASA credentials. So what if he didn't use it's letterhead? And Mr. Mackey posts on sites to debunk conspiracy web sites. Not much difference there IMO. Waterboy? Is this jref talk? You don't see me calling Mr. Mackey "safety boy".

Ryan only stated that he works for NASA. At no point does he imply that NASA agrees or disagrees with his paper.

OK. I can see your point here.

Like he said.... They have no idea he wrote it.

I bet they do.

Originally posted by bsbray11


If he feels like answering questions, maybe it's better he post here. It's not like any of us are going to him looking for answers. None of us are going to join JREF. If it's as nice of a place as ATS, then there's no difference, and like I said, we're not going to him.

He wrote a paper debunking the paper of a well known truther. IF someone has questions about that paper...why should he look for them? He offers his personal e-mail address for that. Jref is just another conduit to ask him questions about his paper. It's your perogative to ask him any questions you may have.... You bsbray... obviously do not!

Originally posted by Griff


I really don't see it as that huge. Ryan Mackey used his NASA credentials. So what if he didn't use it's letterhead? And Mr. Mackey posts on sites to debunk conspiracy web sites. Not much difference there IMO. Waterboy? Is this jref talk? You don't see me calling Mr. Mackey "safety boy".

His credentials are relevant to his paper. Don't you think?

Like he said.... They have no idea he wrote it.

I bet they do.

you may be right.....

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


He wrote a paper debunking the paper of a well known truther. IF someone has questions about that paper...why should he look for them? He offers his personal e-mail address for that. Jref is just another conduit to ask him questions about his paper. It's your perogative to ask him any questions you may have.... You bsbray... obviously do not!

You act as if this is a sin. YOU asked questions for a lengthy period of time, but HE still did not address the more problematic issues. Why would bsbray or anybody else spend time on him?

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall.... Bsbrays questions were answered. He didn't like the response. I was ONLY acting as the middleman.... if you or Bsbray wanted to persue this any further, you could have...and still can.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
His credentials are relevant to his paper. Don't you think?

Yes, but he used NASA's name. I don't post my employer's name here do I? You still believe me that I'm a civil/structural engineer right? Then why the use of the NASA name? Seams a little bit like delusions of granduer to me. But, I'm sure people will now call me jealous of the man or something. I am not. I wish him all the best, as I do everyone else.

reply to post by Griff


If you were to write a white paper, would you list only your scholastic achievments? I would assume your past employment history would somehow be included.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Valhall.... Bsbrays questions were answered. He didn't like the response. I was ONLY acting as the middleman.... if you or Bsbray wanted to persue this any further, you could have...and still can.

No we can't. He won't respond. That was my question. Has he responded to the content of the discussion surrounding the NIST letter...which contains the research he refused to do.

You have blinders on, I guess.

reply to post by CaptainObvious



Most of the time, I read "worked as blah, blah, blah" but you don't need a company name. But, being NASA is so famous, I would probably include it in some way. I would also, being in the engineering field and having a clue about legal matters when it comes to these things, definately put a disclaimer that NASA in no way shape or form had anything to do with it, endorses it, or paid for it.


[edit on 11/6/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Valhall


Valhal.... have you written to him? If not, U2U me and I will give you his E-mail address.

I e-mailed your questions to him and he responded. You in turn accused him of NOT reading the NIST report, called him a hipppocryte, and called him a liar.


Posted by Valhall, on October 16, 2007 at 12:05 GMT

WOW! Too bad he didn't read the NIST report.

posted on 27-10-2007 @ 09:09
I do believe I had to experience how you were going to disingenuously handle touchy subjects prior to accusing you of doing so - wouldn't that be correct?

It is YOUR hypocritical behavior that has formed MY opinion that this exercise is very much not in the best interest of this board.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
He wrote a paper debunking the paper of a well known truther. IF someone has questions about that paper...why should he look for them?

I'm not asking questions about his paper. Who is?

Jref is just another conduit to ask him questions about his paper. It's your perogative to ask him any questions you may have.... You bsbray... obviously do not!

You're right. I don't have any particular questions for a man who confuses observations with explanations. His argument boils down to "this is what happened because this is what I saw", where any math is made to fit the idea that it happened on its own. It's not a rigorous proof of a damned thing and anyone can do that sort of thing. Frank Greening did the same thing when he made his 1-dimensional model of a "collapse". Obviously not meant to be a realistic model of a building collapsing, but he wanted to try to draw conclusions to fit his opinion from it nonetheless.

From my discussion with Mr. Mackey, he didn't present any model like Greening did, but he asserted that we don't need to see if the trusses can pull "hard" enough to sufficiently deflect enough perimeter columns to initiate a global collapse, because that's just what we saw, apparently, no proof needed. How do we know that's what we saw, and that sagging trusses could really do that by themselves? Well, that's the problem, because somebody has to show that (but nobody ever has or apparently intends to), they can't just say it and that's it. Investigations aren't just inferences that some people make, and then everybody else is just supposed to say "Oh, yeah, ok, that could happen if you stick these numbers into this formula the right way, so no need for any real data from the lab". The actual data, proving the hypothesis, is supposed to be there too. NIST even admitted to fudging numbers to try to get things to work. And no lab data to verify it. You can't do that. End of story. Well, you can, but it's ignorant, fraudulent, etc.

I could write a paper saying where the bombs went off and how many pounds equivalent of TNT it was and where the columns were severed. But that doesn't prove bombs did it, even if I make the scenario match up roughly with outside observations of the collapse. It's a theory, but that's not a proof of anything, or really even anything significant at all.

Then I can say -- the building moved downward, which is just what it would do if explosives blew away the core columns. Therefore bombs did it.

But that still isn't right.

"But explosives severing columns is a known phenomena!!" (-- basically equivalent to what Mackey is arguing about deflections)

So what?


You have to understand, I'm waiting for the independent evidence, the actual lab data, that sufficient perimeter column buckling could occur, for enough columns, simply from truss heating, to initiate a global collapse. Not just numbers that show it's possible, or that such a dreamed-up scenario can be made to fit the observations. That's playing with arbitrary numbers and formulas. That's not real science. Real science would be the NIST scientists in the lab, not changing input paramters on computer models, but taking the composite floors and heating them to see what kinds of perimeter deflections they could get with different truss temperatures.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

You have to understand, I'm waiting for the independent evidence, the actual lab data, that sufficient perimeter column buckling could occur, for enough columns, simply from truss heating, to initiate a global collapse. Not just numbers that show it's possible, or that such a dreamed-up scenario can be made to fit the observations. That's playing with arbitrary numbers and formulas. That's not real science. Real science would be the NIST scientists in the lab, not changing input paramters on computer models, but taking the composite floors and heating them to see what kinds of perimeter deflections they could get with different truss temperatures.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by bsbray11]

I'm confused. What is this "independent evidence" you are talking about? Where is it to come from?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

It is YOUR hypocritical behavior that has formed MY opinion that this exercise is very much not in the best interest of this board.

Yep, I stand by that. I'm about ready to accuse you of something as well...like not being able to read. Why are you acting like you can't comprehend what I'm asking here? I think you're most likely a little more intelligent than you're putting on to be at the moment.

I asked him questions that he did not answer. Now, you can set there and say he did until the cows come home, but that won't make it so.

He responded as if he didn't even know the contents of the report and then invited me to do the research into the report for him. That can't be denied without looking like a white-washer.

I have now pulled several of the contentious portions of the report into one easy to access thread and my comments have been that Mr. Mackey still hasn't responded.

I don't think he will either.

Just to be clear - in case you're still not following me - I'm not needing you to provide me an email, a URL, to pass comments between Mackey and me, or even to respond to me...I'm stating where I stand right now relative to Mr. Mackey's performance.

You don't have to like it, just accept that's the way I feel.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by Valhall]

If you are sincerely interested in investigating the potential waste of tax payer money through Ryan Mackey's participation on JREF forums during JPL work hours in an attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, I would suggest contacting his supervisors.

The link to his supervisors can be found here: NASA JPL Explorationn

Their email addresses are:
Dr. Anna Tavormina, Section Manager
[email removed]

Dr. Thomas Yunck, Deputy Section Manager
[email removed]




email addresses removed... it's easy enough to locate them if members so desire


[edit on 7-11-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

reply to post by Swing Dangler



So much for "answering to no one". Relatively speaking.

Fitzgibbon is obviousely a pessimist... There are so many unansweres questions about that day... and the next day the media has it all figured out??? No way, def a cover up and of course he is being paid to do this...
Open your eyes people!!!!! and your mind for that matter!!!! Give me a break. Good post man.

ooops??

[edit on 7-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]