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

reply to post by gabriel5578


Anyone smell a sock puppet??

Sorry, CO. I'm a bit behind on the laundry this week.

Oh.....sockPUPPET? My bad.

reply to post by Griff


Griff...To me, using company letterhead implies that the company somehow agrees/endorses what is put on the letterhead. But that is my very humble opinion.

Originally posted by gabriel5578
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.

Pessimist? No. Realist? Much better description! The "unansweres questions about that day" have devolved here into such scintillating discussions as what kind of suitcase nuke do you think they used or how about that real-time CGI or how they got the 3-D holographic projectors to sync so well with the pre-implanted explosives from when they built the WTC 3 1/2 decades previously. These are credible? C'mon! Give yer head a shake.

The reason "the media" had it all figured out is that it was pretty obvious what happened and just because you've gone ten rounds duking it out with Occam's Razor doesn't make you a hero; it just makes you a bleeding twit.

As for your suggestion that I'm being paid to post? Laughable. I work from home and every once in a blue moon, I'll wander into this board for a giggle and/or headshake. I'll try on occasion to inject a certain amount of logic in addition to pointing out things that should be clear to anyone that took high school physics. But if the regular 'truthers' here insist on coming up with wild and wooly explanations that give them some sort of twisted comfort, all I can say is whatever turns your crank. If I truly wanted to be devious, I'd start recommending they submit their 'work' to accredited publications for peer review. But that'd just be nasty.

Originally posted by gabriel5578
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.

I have to tell you that over the last 5 years I have seen a lot of "unanswered" questions about 9/11 answered repeatedly but are still being asked today as if they were never answered.

So what "unanswered questions" do you have?

reply to post by six


I also agree with this. As I said, I can see CO's point there. But, if we are going to harp that much about such issues, I believe Mr. Mackey should have at least made a disclaimer that NASA had no involvement whatsoever. I'm not totally sure of the legal remafications about either case, but I know I'd do it just to be sure.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The "unansweres questions about that day"

First. Nice dig at his typo. Real mature.

have devolved here into such scintillating discussions as what kind of suitcase nuke do you think they used or how about that real-time CGI or how they got the 3-D holographic projectors to sync so well with the pre-implanted explosives from when they built the WTC 3 1/2 decades previously. These are credible? C'mon! Give yer head a shake.

No where has any of those theories been brought up in this thread. Why is it that when we try to have a discussion, we have trolls come in and start talking about wild theories that we are not even talking about to try and "discredit" us? Talk about "truthers" having an agenda, maybe a look in the mirror might give you something to think about?

The reason "the media" had it all figured out is that it was pretty obvious what happened

Really? And yet, 6 years later, we're still scratching our heads? Pretty obvious indeed.

and just because you've gone ten rounds duking it out with Occam's Razor doesn't make you a hero; it just makes you a bleeding twit.

Personal attacking is against the T&C's of this site. Have we forgotten that?

I'll try on occasion to inject a certain amount of logic in addition to pointing out things that should be clear to anyone that took high school physics.

High school physics is a good start. When you get to college level, let me know and we'll talk. K?

If I truly wanted to be devious, I'd start recommending they submit their 'work' to accredited publications for peer review. But that'd just be nasty.

If I truely wanted to submit a paper for peer review, I'd be lacking certain evidence. Like say, access to the steel, construction documents, and all the hiden video and pictures. I wonder why they won't disclose this NEEDED information? And yes, it is very much needed, so don't try the old "but, but, it's all in the NIST report" routine. I never bought that line to begin with and I'm not buying it today.

Get me those needed evidences and I'll submit my damn work for peer review. Until then, I think people need to realize we can't. Why is that so hard to understand for some?

Originally posted by jthomas
So what "unanswered questions" do you have?

Why are the construction documents of buildings that will never exist again under lock and key and illegal to own? I haven't heard a sufficient answer to that one yet. There are more, but I figured why bombard you and derail the thread. Which is about Mr. Mackey.

originally posted by GriffWhy is it that when we try to have a discussion, we have trolls come in and start talking about wild theories that we are not even talking about to try and "discredit" us?

not to pick on you griff, its just i see a lot of people say things like this and i always have to wonder; who decides what theories are wild and out there and which are plausible?

cuz take even a guy like me for example, ive never claimed to buy into the govts story 100% and ive said im pretty sure that there is a coverup on some level, though i personally believe its more in teh areas of covering for gross negligence.

but, some people think that no planes, or mini nukes are totally plausible while other think they are the rantings of 40yo virgins living in their mothers basements.

you Griff dont buy into the govts explaination for the collapse because a lot of what they say doesnt jive with what you know of engineering and physics. i can respect that not just because i respect you but because what you post to support your opinions holds water when held to scrutiny.

but the flip side to that is take a guy like me who reads CD theories and thinks that most of them are believed by people who get their knowledge of demolitions from lethal weapon movies. i mean honestly i see as much "proof" of CD theories as i do space lasers, holograms, or most recently giant gorrillas (that thread was really funny along with being an indictment of most of the truth movement)

i mean, i dont buy the govts account 100% so technically that makes me a truther, yet, what decides what theories are legit and which are "wild"?

i didnt mean to single you out griff, its just that of most of the people i see posting about why skeptics have to focus on the "wild theories" i know you are mature enough to take this post in the spirit it was intended.

regards

reply to post by Damocles


Good questions and good points.

I would call "wild" theories, the theories that need to stay on the back burner of the discussion until about the 10th time discussing 9/11 with someone. If I ran up to a person on the street and started talking to them about mini nukes at the WTC (no matter how professional I am dressed and sound) they would think I'm crazy. No matter if I am correct or not. I hope that makes sense?

I didn't mean "wild" as in not plausible or we shouldn't look into them.

I don't even think "wild" is the point. It's more like "derailment", and the apparent fact that you can't argue one thing convincingly without having to then defend something more ridiculous and totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

What one person thinks is wild, yes, another might not even give it a second thought. Fortunately both opinions are equally meaningless and "wild" can't be measured with units.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The "unansweres questions about that day" have devolved here into such scintillating discussions as what kind of suitcase nuke do you think they used or how about that real-time CGI or how they got the 3-D holographic projectors to sync so well with the pre-implanted explosives from when they built the WTC 3 1/2 decades previously. These are credible? C'mon! Give yer head a shake.

No where has any of those theories been brought up in this thread.

In this thread? No. I don't think I said that. I don't even think that it can be reasonably inferred that I implied that. I think the average person reading the post would recognise that "here" in the context of the post would refer to ATS as a whole, not particularly this thread. As for the meat of my actual point, are you suggesting these topics haven't been mentioned on the ATS 9/11 board?

Originally posted by Griff
Why is it that when we try to have a discussion, we have trolls come in and start talking about wild theories that we are not even talking about to try and "discredit" us? Talk about "truthers" having an agenda, maybe a look in the mirror might give you something to think about?

Are you suggesting it's debunkers who're positing the wildest, most unlikely of the theories as a way to discredit the 'truth' movement as a whole? Does this mean that John Lear is an undercover debunker? Or do you mean that you just don't appreciate it when a debunker comes onto the board and points out the Emperor's general lack of clothing, that is to say, that there are some truly wacked-out 'theories' about 9/11 posited by erstwhile regular ATS posters?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The reason "the media" had it all figured out is that it was pretty obvious what happened

Really? And yet, 6 years later, we're still scratching our heads? Pretty obvious indeed.

You're expecting me to account for some people's ability to achieve an impressive level of denial? Sorry if I don't take up the gauntlet on that one, thank you very much.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
and just because you've gone ten rounds duking it out with Occam's Razor doesn't make you a hero; it just makes you a bleeding twit.

Personal attacking is against the T&C's of this site. Have we forgotten that?

Please don't be changing the coding on my posts to appear to be making a point. I'd wager that that's against the T&C of ATS as well. In case you hadn't recognised it, the "you" in my post is a general, collective, non-specific "you", not the "you" as in gabriel5578 that you (Griff) would like to imply. Hopefully, that's clear enough?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
I'll try on occasion to inject a certain amount of logic in addition to pointing out things that should be clear to anyone that took high school physics.

High school physics is a good start. When you get to college level, let me know and we'll talk. K?

Try me. I'm 30 years out of high school but am a gamer nonetheless. You may have college physics to back you but you must admit that that would make you somewhat exceptional around here.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
If I truly wanted to be devious, I'd start recommending they submit their 'work' to accredited publications for peer review. But that'd just be nasty.

If I truely wanted to submit a paper for peer review, I'd be lacking certain evidence. Like say, access to the steel, construction documents, and all the hiden video and pictures.

IIRC, the States has a Freedom of Information Act. Is there anything else you're lacking?

Originally posted by Griff
I wonder why they won't disclose this NEEDED information?

I guess the elephant in the room is why oh why legions of professional engineers fluent in the architecture game haven't been storming the proverbial Bastille likewise demanding the same? Could it possibly be.....wait for it.....that you're exceptional? That the official story really does carry far more water than anything else that's been posited hither and nigh over the last six years?

Originally posted by Griff
And yes, it is very much needed, so don't try the old "but, but, it's all in the NIST report" routine. I never bought that line to begin with and I'm not buying it today.

Having not read it myself, I wouldn't think of it. BTW, have you?

Originally posted by Griff
Get me those needed evidences and I'll submit my damn work for peer review. Until then, I think people need to realize we can't. Why is that so hard to understand for some?

As I understand it, the steel is now razor blades or somesuch. So does this mean you don't truly want to submit a paper for peer review? Don't answer that. I'm kibitzing.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


In response. No, I haven't read the whole 10,000 pages of the NIST report. I've read enough of it though to know they started with a conclusion and worked their way backward. Not a very scientific approach in my book.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

In response. No, I haven't read the whole 10,000 pages of the NIST report. I've read enough of it though to know they started with a conclusion and worked their way backward. Not a very scientific approach in my book.

Is it their methodology or their working assumption that you're most at odds with?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
In this thread? No. I don't think I said that. I don't even think that it can be reasonably inferred that I implied that. I think the average person reading the post would recognise that "here" in the context of the post would refer to ATS as a whole, not particularly this thread. As for the meat of my actual point, are you suggesting these topics haven't been mentioned on the ATS 9/11 board?

What I ment was that you were derailing this thread with 9/11 related theories that don't belong in a thread about Ryan Mackey.

Are you suggesting it's debunkers who're positing the wildest, most unlikely of the theories as a way to discredit the 'truth' movement as a whole? Does this mean that John Lear is an undercover debunker? Or do you mean that you just don't appreciate it when a debunker comes onto the board and points out the Emperor's general lack of clothing, that is to say, that there are some truly wacked-out 'theories' about 9/11 posited by erstwhile regular ATS posters?

I don't appreciate it when a "debunker" comes into a thread NOT about mini-nukes, no planes etc. and spouts "look how crazy these people are, they believe holograms hit the towers". Especially when we are not discussing those theories.

BTW, all of us who question don't believe in all the theories.

You're expecting me to account for some people's ability to achieve an impressive level of denial? Sorry if I don't take up the gauntlet on that one, thank you very much.

So, it's denial to question what really happened? Sorry that I don't see it that way. Denial would be saying "ok, I don't have to think about myself, the government has already done that for me".

Please don't be changing the coding on my posts to appear to be making a point. I'd wager that that's against the T&C of ATS as well.

I can bold or emphasise anything I want to about your posts. They are not copywrited. And no, as far as I'm aware, it is not against the T&C's.

In case you hadn't recognised it, the "you" in my post is a general, collective, non-specific "you", not the "you" as in gabriel5578 that you (Griff) would like to imply. Hopefully, that's clear enough?

Well, maybe that is what you ment but it sure sounded to me like you were calling the poster him/herself the you. Could be my mistake and I'm man enough to admit that.

but am a gamer nonetheless.

If you don't mind me asking. What game? I've been trying to stay away from World of Warcraft but there are too many friends that want me to join. I may sometime soon.

You may have college physics to back you but you must admit that that would make you somewhat exceptional around here.

I don't think of myself as exceptional. Just to make that clear. I try and check my ego at the door when I log in.

IIRC, the States has a Freedom of Information Act. Is there anything else you're lacking?

If they are so easy to obtain, can you get me them? Thanks.

As I understand it, the steel is now razor blades or somesuch. So does this mean you don't truly want to submit a paper for peer review?

If I could get the information I seek and find a reason to write one, I would.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Both actually. They admit not testing the steel for anything. Even after FEMA found sulfidation and said it should be looked into. Even after there are multiple accounts of explosions. You would think a comprehensive study would have at least looked into these things correct?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Is it their methodology or their working assumption that you're most at odds with?

I don't know if you ever had to do a lab report for a physics class or anything like that, but you're not supposed to just assume variables when you can help it. NIST not only assumed critical variables (when they tweaked input parameters on their computer models, as they admit, for more heat), but they assumed their whole damned hypothesis. They never tested it. That's not science. That's arrogance, thinking that you don't even have to test your hypothesis, that you're just right by default.

I'm not talking about recreating a collapse when I say "testing", either. I mean heating a composite floor up and seeing how much deflection it can cause in a perimeter column representing a column in the outer grid of the WTC structure. They just assumed that's what happened. Not an investigation.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by bsbray11]

That's arrogance, thinking that you don't even have to test your hypothesis, that you're just right by default.

Want to know another thing I find arrogant about NIST and also insulting?

They are the only ones privy to the construction documents. Wouldn't it be better for all involved to have the documents out for others to verify some things? What I mean is, wouldn't it be better for a million engineers to come to the same conclusions than just a handful? I find it very arrogant that they pretty much infer that we are not smart enough to figure it out. While only they are. Especially when they can't even figure out WTC 7. Maybe I could. But, they won't even give me the chance. That's arrogance IMO.

Fitz,

In this thread I detail several of the issues I have with the NIST report.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
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]

You Rock Swing!

Swing is a stand up guy, I've watched him kickin debunker butt over at JREF. The Debunkers always fall back on personal attacks, strawman and the mods just sit back and do nothing. JREF, at least for Conspiracy Theories sucks a$$.