Ryan Mackey - NASA contractor debunks David Ray Griffin

Originally posted by jprophet420

That's what I thought but on the Randi forums he seems quite bullish about his credentials and his ability to correctly interpret the cause of the collapses. Amongst the Randi forum members he seems to be attaining a god like status because of this report.

he doesent show his math, or rather he only shows what he wants and doesent cite sources. if this was high school physiscs he would receive an F.

perhaps in a college level writing class he would receive credit.

either way it debunks nothing and proves nothing, simply fodder for the masses.

right, man.

reply to post by anti72


right man? GREAT response

What is he right about?

that proof without numbers is like pie without filling, totally useless unless you are starving.

reply to post by jprophet420


You didn't read ANY of my posts nor did you read the scientists paper. If you did, you would have seen the work that put forth that I posted, and you would have seen that he did in fact show work when needed.

I will ask you two questions JP.

1. Where in the paper should there be work shown?(please be specific)
2. Where in the paper does Mr. Mackey hypothisis contain errors?9agian please refrence page numbers or simply cut & paste)

I will promise you that I will be e-mailing him anything you may find that is not accurate.

Thanks
CO

Fact is, those steel members wereexplosively ejected. Period. The math is a crude approximation of what we can all see occurring. It means next to nothing in the big scheme of things. This debunks nothing. Nada. Zilch. It happened. Huge steel members went flying hundreds of yards. That's the real point here.

The violent failure of the building columns - in particular the East side
of the South Tower at the 81 floor which triggered the collapse - was
caused by the tremendous weight of the building above it and
the fires. Ever seen materials under great stress fail? Can hurl
pieces with considerable velocity. No explosives are needed just
the energy contained in the material by gravity.

Also explain how explosives could: (1) be tranported to the upper floors
of the building without being noticed. (2) how could said explosives
be placed against the buildings extrerior columns , again with attracting
attention (3) How said explosives and the detonation systems (wiring,
timers/radios, etc) survive the aircraft impacts and fires for an hour
and still be capable of detonation.

1. Where in the paper should there be work shown?(please be specific)

he estimates the initial weight of the building. that debunks the entire paper.

i will post the exact page #'s when i am on my PC.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by jprophet420]

reply to post by jprophet420


Are his estimations wrong?

Thanks,

CO

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Are his estimations wrong?

Thanks,

CO

they are estimates. there is a chance that they are accurate. being that they are estimates makes his paper a theory and not proof, thats all. you cant debunk a theory with a theory.

Originally posted by GriffSo, what does an integrated systems health manager know about demolitions or structural engineering?

David Ray Griffin is a Professor of Theology. Why should we believe what he has to say about demolitions or structural engineering?

I've looked so far at Mackey's paper; I WAS going to go through it and point out all the mistakes but I got to page 13 (yes, only 13) and gave up. This is nothing more than a hit-piece, and not a particularly good one at that. The guy is basically rehashing the NIST report, and basing his whole thesis, such as it is, on that report.

His whole assumption is that the NIST report was scientific and as such it is authorative; the whole problem we "CTers" have with the NIST report is that, like the 9/11 Omission Commission, it was captured by political forces before it even started. To claim it is independent and therefore reliable displays a singular lack of open-mindedness or knowledge of other "conspiracy theories" - the whole point of the main CTs of the day is that a top-down government conspiracy had already suborned all the necessary parts of the operation, including controlling the aftermath, and thus anything outside of a full, truly INDEPENDENT enquiry would be a total waste of time. The government would have no earthly reason for refusing a independent enquiry IF it was truly not involved in the events of that day, and the chances that an independent enquiry (or a number thereof) would have been granted are high - for IF the Twin Towers collapsed due to some design flaw the govt would want to know for their own sake - being the self-serving cowards that they are they'd want to know if they themselves were safe every time they entered a high-rise building!

Assume for one second that, for instance, the WTC came down as it did but that the govt. didn't have anything to do with it. Do you think for one second that the steel would have been disposed of quite so quickly? Noooooo! They'd have been talking about every anomaly on the news for weeks on end! After 20 years of observing political events I know by now that if there is any way a government can dispel conspiracy theories it will not hesitate to do so - for the one thing a government cannot live with is a loss of confidence in itself from the people who may or may not re-elect it. There is far too much evidence in the past of governments carrying out false flag terrorism, including attacks against their own people - for us to assume that on this day of all days the US govt was innocent - especially when you examine who benefitted. The most serendipitious day in history for the nefarious aims of PNAC, sometimes fulfilling their requirements almost to the letter, and we are to assume there's nothing to see here? I don't think so!

Back to Mackey's thesis: I could fill up a whole page with the fallacies, distortions and disingenuous verbal diarrhoea the guy engages in in the first few pages alone but I just don't have the energy. The fact that he refers to Bazant and Zhou as somehow authorative should be enough to have anyone with half a brain curling up in disgust!

Personally I'd wait for David Ray Griffin himself to get round to writing a debunking of this debunking of his debunking of debunking (if you follow me... ) - I'm sure he will if Mackey's "report", such as it is, becomes as popular as any of the garbage promoted by the likes of Popular Mechanics.

Originally posted by sesshin
David Ray Griffin is a Professor of Theology. Why should we believe what he has to say about demolitions or structural engineering?

Have you read any of his books? Why not read the message rather than looking for ways to discredit the messenger?

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by sesshin
David Ray Griffin is a Professor of Theology. Why should we believe what he has to say about demolitions or structural engineering?

Have you read any of his books? Why not read the message rather than looking for ways to discredit the messenger?

Maybe you misunderstood. That was my way of pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning Ryan Mackey's credentials and if he's qualified to debunk David Ray Griffin. If he's not qualified to debunk DRG, then how is DRG qualified to debunk NIST?

Originally posted by sesshin
Maybe you misunderstood. That was my way of pointing out the hypocrisy of questioning Ryan Mackey's credentials and if he's qualified to debunk David Ray Griffin. If he's not qualified to debunk DRG, then how is DRG qualified to debunk NIST?

Ah, apologies.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
2 questions Griff...
1. have you read Dr. Griffins white paper?

I have not.

2. Does Mackeys paper debunk Dr. Griffins?

Haven't read either to the fullest extent yet.

One thing I have noticed is pages 17-19 of the pdf when he's talking about wind load. He says that the wind load is the governing factor over the live load. I hate to break it to him but wind load is considered a live load for one thing.

Then he goes on to say that the 2000% is erroneous because the columns were designed for wind load governing live load. This is false because in design, you combine ALL loads into factored loads. He even quotes NIST for this.

In the 1960’s, ultimate strength design was standardized only for reinforced concrete. As shown in
Table 4-5, the three codes from the 1960’s referenced ACI 318-63, which includes the following load
combinations to establish the design loads (U) for structural members:
1. For structures where wind and earthquake loads may be neglected, U = 1.5 D + 1.8 L.
2. For structures where wind load must be included, U = 1.25 (D + L) or U = 0.9 D + 1.1 W,
whichever produces the most unfavorable condition for the member.

What he doesn't realize is that when designing a member, you design the member to hold ALL loads. He is actually shooting himself in the foot there because it shows that the columns were designed to withstand the wind loads (remember that live loads are smaller if you want to seperate them out) and could therefore hold much more gravitational load than what he is suggesting.

Hence, the live loads are only a minor contributor to the design load on the perimeter
columns.

Although true, the wind load is designed into the strength of the columns along with the live load. So, the gravitational resistance would be much higher than what would be expected of the member.

I don't understand what he is trying to get at that the columns would be designed seperately from live load and wind load when ALL loads are put into combination and strength of the column is strength for ALL loads.

Seeing as there wasn't a huricane that day, you can imagine that the gravity bearing capacity of the columns would be very high.

Does he understand factored loads? Does he understand how those loads are designed for?

It doesn't seem like he does.

Originally posted by sesshin
Maybe you misunderstood.

Maybe you both misunderstood. The whole point of me saying that was because everytime we hear of someone writting a paper or etc. (Dr. Griffin), we hear from "debunkers" exactly what you said. They try to debunk the profession and not the message the professional is saying.

[edit on 9/17/2007 by Griff]

page 169:

We will use this lower value, but remark that the actual value could be considerably different, although it may never be known for certain.

secondly, as i mentioned before, this report also assumes that every core column and every supporting beam failed completely at exactly the same instance in time.
there is no explanation of this in the report.

also, his theory on wtc7 is completely debunked...
page 173

He is in no position to draw this conclusion. Suppose, for instance, the structure – even damaged and during collapse – was capable of supporting twice the static load, which we will call Fstatic, but that it could only do so until being deflected by 25 cm. After this, any given floor will snap, and the resistance goes to zero until the next floor is hit 300 cm below. Work, again, is force times distance. The total work done on any given floor would be 2 Fstatic x 25 cm + 0 x 300 cm = 50 Fstatic cm. If we model the structure as homogeneous, supplying instead an average force called Fdynamic that acts over the full 325 cm distance of each floor, we can estimate this average force by dividing the total work by the total distance. The total work done in both situations must be the same. Therefore, we can calculate Fdynamic = 50 Fstatic cm / 325 cm = 0.15 Fstatic, what Dr. Kurttila would call a “resistance factor” of 0.15, very close to his estimate for WTC 7.

wtc7 didnt fall from the top down like the other 2 buildings. that destroys this entire argument.

Update:

I e-mailed Mr. Mackey at his provided e-mail address with the questions Griif and Jprophet raised. As soon as I receive a response, I will let you know.

Thanks,

CO

I just want to say as a disclaimer. Even though I have questions of Mr. Mackey's paper, that does not mean I support Dr. Griffin's paper as correct either. I haven't read Dr. Griffin's paper (I will one of these days) yet, so I can not comment if he is correct or not.

CO, please let us know what Mr. Mackey's response is when and if he does. I don't mean that derogatory, just that I'm sure he's a busy man. Thanks.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I e-mailed Mr. Mackey at his provided e-mail address with the questions Griif and Jprophet raised. As soon as I receive a response, I will let you know.

I take it no comment yet? Just wondering.

Edit: I would think after a week of actually learning what factored loads are, he would have responded by now. But, I guess like every other "debunker" when asked the real questions, there's no comment.

Please let us know if he has the nads to respond. Thanks.

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff


Griff,

The link to his e-mail address was a little funky. I actually sent one letter out and it was kicked back to me. The second address I tried actually mailed out. I am not sure if he recieved it.

I will follow up with another letter to see if he will be able to respond sometime soon.

Thanks,

C.O.

EDIT TO ADD: I sent it twice... both to the wrong e-mail addresses. I found the one that should work and resent it...I will let you know when he gets back to me.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by CaptainObvious]