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

Originally posted by Griff
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.

IIRC, t'was gabriel5578 that started the derail and I was only making to address points raised therein.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

Well, it's seems abundantly clear that the original intention of the thread was to be one person's railing against a perceived foe who resides elsewhere AKA beating up on his very own strawman.

As I pointed out above, gabriel5578 started the derail and as it's quite clear that R. Mackey won't be rushing over to ATS to confront his antagonist and said antagonist seems not to have any intention of likewise taking the gauntlet to JREF, what harm if this particular thread veers slightly?

Originally posted by Griff
BTW, all of us who question don't believe in all the theories.

Did I suggest otherwise? However, you'd be dissembling if you suggested that the majority of people who frequent ATS' 9/11 board couldn't be fairly described as 'truthers'. Whether they choose to take that as an epithet or a badge of honour depends, of course, on the person.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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".

I don't see where I suggested otherwise. I take issue with irrational suggestions that wrap themselves up in theory-like garb to mask itself as quasi-logic. That seems to be the most regular modus operandi on the 9/11 board.

Neither is "denial" a lick-spittle acceptance of whatever the powers that be say is. The simple fact of the situation is that the collapse of the WTC towers fits within the reasonable expectational outcome of a high-speed impact of a large airliner followed by an uncontained fire.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

But if by doing so, you change the meaning and/or intent of a word or phrase, that's at best questionable tactics on your part. I explained the actual as opposed to your perceived meaning and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting an apology.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

Fair 'nuff.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbonbut am a gamer nonetheless.

If you don't mind me asking. What game?

Colloquialism

adj. gam·er, gam·est

1. Plucky and unyielding in spirit; resolute: She put up a game fight against her detractors.
2. Ready and willing: Are you game for a swim?

Goddit?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

I believe the operative phrase in my sentence would be "around here". Around MIT or UofT maybe not so exceptional. On ATS.......

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

Uh.....'cuz I'm not a Yank and even if I were, I find the evidence supports the assertion that impact and fire were the initiating causes of the WTC collapse?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

So.......what now then? No other avenue of interest or investigational pursuit?

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
You Rock Swing!

Swing is a stand up guy, I've watched him kickin debunker butt over at JREF.

Uh huh......K....
Guess there's another Swing Dangler on JREF I've been running across

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
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$$.

Hokay. Hasn't been my experience of JREF. Mind you, there's been a flock of 'truthers' as of late who seem to be of the 'proof??-I-doan-need-no-steenking-proof' school of thought and perhaps the collective JREF tolerance level isn't what it has been in past.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
IIRC, t'was gabriel5578 that started the derail and I was only making to address points raised therein.

Fair enough. I can see your point.

what harm if this particular thread veers slightly?

Again, I can see your point.

The simple fact of the situation is that the collapse of the WTC towers fits within the reasonable expectational outcome of a high-speed impact of a large airliner followed by an uncontained fire.

I disagree with this and we'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree.

But if by doing so, you change the meaning and/or intent of a word or phrase, that's at best questionable tactics on your part. I explained the actual as opposed to your perceived meaning and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting an apology.

No you're not. I apologize for taking the meaning of your post the wrong way.

I believe the operative phrase in my sentence would be "around here". Around MIT or UofT maybe not so exceptional. On ATS.......

I'll admit. Around MIT, I'd probably get my but kicked. I did once date a girl in high school who went to MIT (years after we dated). I didn't get the impression that she thought I was dumb. I'm not saying you implied that, I'm just saying. Not that I consider myself to be Mr. intellectual either.

Uh.....'cuz I'm not a Yank and even if I were, I find the evidence supports the assertion that impact and fire were the initiating causes of the WTC collapse?

I am a Yank and an engineer and I would like to see how the towers and 7 were built. Maybe someday it might save some people's lives since I could study went wrong?

So.......what now then? No other avenue of interest or investigational pursuit?

Well, I've been trying to put calculations (structural) together to debunk outrageous theories of both sides. It's extremely difficult when the evidence is hidden from me. Who knows, I could be the one who dispels all conspiracy theories. Why won't they give me a chance? Or are they scared that we may find out something else?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
IIRC, t'was gabriel5578 that started the derail and I was only making to address points raised therein.

Fair enough. I can see your point.

Stop it!! Quit being reasonable!

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
what harm if this particular thread veers slightly?

Again, I can see your point.

Okay. This is gonna get ugly.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The simple fact of the situation is that the collapse of the WTC towers fits within the reasonable expectational outcome of a high-speed impact of a large airliner followed by an uncontained fire.

I disagree with this and we'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree.

Fair 'nuff. No shame in that.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh.....'cuz I'm not a Yank and even if I were, I find the evidence supports the assertion that impact and fire were the initiating causes of the WTC collapse?

I am a Yank and an engineer and I would like to see how the towers and 7 were built. Maybe someday it might save some people's lives since I could study went wrong?

More's the better if that comes to pass. However, I think we're into an area where no reasonable and sustainable amount of design input is going to make the difference. Maybe had the blown-on insulation stayed in-place somehow, things would've been different. But that gets into the realm of parlour-talking.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by FitzgibbonSo.......what now then? No other avenue of interest or investigational pursuit?

Well, I've been trying to put calculations (structural) together to debunk outrageous theories of both sides. It's extremely difficult when the evidence is hidden from me. Who knows, I could be the one who dispels all conspiracy theories. Why won't they give me a chance? Or are they scared that we may find out something else?

I doubt anybody's scared of something untoward being 'discovered'. Maybe your best direction is finishing the NIST report (for example) and whatever other professional material is out there or comes out and honestly assess the situation as a whole.

As I asked earlier, if as much were amiss about the entire incident as some here and elsewhere would have the great unwashed (present company included) believe, then where's the legion of professionals of various and sundry knowledgeable stripes pointing out the problems and demanding answers?

Absent that, I have to take a jaundiced view of the vast majority of 'truthers'.

originally posted by Griff:Well, I've been trying to put calculations (structural) together to debunk outrageous theories of both sides. It's extremely difficult when the evidence is hidden from me. Who knows, I could be the one who dispels all conspiracy theories. Why won't they give me a chance? Or are they scared that we may find out something else?

But Griff, we both know what will happen when you do that. they'll turn on you like rabid dogs and accuse you of being paid by the govt. no one likes facts or calculations when considering their theories. hell, look what happened when i posted calculations for how much explosive it would take to bring down one of the towers. BOOM! instant disinfo agent claims.

As soon as you start to challenge peoples theories with facts they get real testy real fast and then you sit and ask yourself why you bothered.

but ill admit theres a certain satisfaction to be gained just from knowing for yourself

Typical Jref poster...if they would only get to the point and drop the attitude. The amazing Randi appears on ATS again poof!! Go back to your circle jerk!!

That was addressed to no one in particular

Originally posted by Griff

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.

One's enough. Do you have a citation? What is your evidence for that?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
As I asked earlier, if as much were amiss about the entire incident as some here and elsewhere would have the great unwashed (present company included) believe, then where's the legion of professionals of various and sundry knowledgeable stripes pointing out the problems and demanding answers?

But they are my friend.

Here's a start.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by jthomas
One's enough. Do you have a citation? What is your evidence for that?

Owning classified documents is illegal. Evidence enough?

Edit: Unless you're Sandy Berger that is.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
One's enough. Do you have a citation? What is your evidence for that?

Owning classified documents is illegal. Evidence enough?

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Griff]

No. I am asking for your evidence that they under lock and key. What is your source for that info? Can we have a citation, please?

Originally posted by jthomas
No. I am asking for your evidence that they under lock and key. What is your source for that info? Can we have a citation, please?

I'm sorry but what part of classified do you not understand?

4. confidential or secret: The firm's promotional budget for next year is classified information.

Source: dictionary.reference.com...

But, if you can find the structural drawings, more power to you. Can you e-mail, fax, snail mail, anything you want to me? Because, so far, I've been hard pressed to find them.

And yes, owning classified documents is illegal. I'm sorry to say that the so-called freedom of information act is a farce. Just look at all the documents obtained from it. They're all blacked out. Information, my ass. Freedom, my ass.

We can play this game til the cows come home. I've been asking for 3 years now. Where are the construction documents?

Until those are supplied for ALL to see, then there is a cover up. A cover up of what, I do not know. But, a cover up none the less. Or else we could take a gander at these documents.

I'm getting sick of the defense of "it's all in the NIST report....read it". NO. Damn it. I want the documents to study myself. Why is this so hard to comprehend for some people?

When things are put in secret, there is a reason they were put in secret.

Rant over.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by Griff]

Just for the sake of a head count. I asked for blueprints and model data about 1-1/2 to 2 years ago (posted on here when I did it)...didn't get any where.

Originally posted by Griff

But, if you can find the structural drawings, more power to you. Can you e-mail, fax, snail mail, anything you want to me? Because, so far, I've been hard pressed to find them.

I'm confused. You said they are under "lock and key". IF they are under lock and key, how do you know that? Where is the information that they are in fact under lock and key?

I'm just asking you for the source of that information, a document or a citation. I have never seen any information that structural drawings under under "lock and key" and would like to see that for myself.

Hello out there - first post here so don't rail on me too hard...

I had a question for the user Griff, really off the old Ryan Mackey forum that has pretty much died away. One of the points brought up was the various strenthgs of steel used in the WTC towers. He alerted you to the fact that there were I believe 14 different grades used. Your response was this:

"I just wanted to thank Mr. Mackey for pointing this out. I was under the impression that only 2 grades were used. This does make a difference."

Exactly what and how large of a difference are we talking here. I assume the reference is to the overall load strenth of the towers as they increase in height. Can you clarify your remark and how it changed your thinking?

reply to post by megaman1234



megaman,

When I saw your post I got real confused as to what difference you might have in mind the 14 grades of steel would have on things and actually had to go hunt down this post by Griff:

posted on 10-29-2007 @ 09:20 single this post "quote"REPLY TO:

Mackey's words...

Regarding the perimeter columns, the reason you are confused is that, while the perimeter columns had constant exterior dimensions, the column strength was NOT constant with height. From NIST NCSTAR1-1, pages 10-11:


I just wanted to thank Mr. Mackey for pointing this out. I was under the impression that only 2 grades were used. This does make a difference.

Now, one a side note and especially since Mr. Mackey will not join here. I have no reason to doubt the NIST when they report things of this nature. But, I do have a problem with not being able to verify these column strengths myself. I.E., I would need to be privy to the structural documentation.

...in the other thread. I've got something to say that I hope I can contain my contempt toward Mackey at this point on...

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

The strength of the material of the perimeter columns did NOT decrease with height. Man oh man, this guy just keeps showing his lack of research of this topic.

If you want to see the data of the various perimeter (as well as core) columns with yield strength and stampings for various floors and see that throughout the 100+ floors the strength remained on average the SAME, you may visit any of the tables in NIST NCSTAR 1-3B.

The 14 grades were used in various applications THROUGH-OUT the building (i.e. lower grade steels were used on certain floor truss components, while higher grade steels were used in columns). But the steel strength did NOT decrease with height. IN FACT, the highest strength steel used in the building had a limiting thickness of 1/2" so as you went up the building and got to the thinner walled structures, you would have been more likely to find HIGHER strength steel.

Griff - don't thank Mackey for nothing yet.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Valhall]

Originally posted by megaman1234
Hello out there - first post here so don't rail on me too hard...

I had a question for the user Griff, really off the old Ryan Mackey forum that has pretty much died away. One of the points brought up was the various strenthgs of steel used in the WTC towers. He alerted you to the fact that there were I believe 14 different grades used. Your response was this:

"I just wanted to thank Mr. Mackey for pointing this out. I was under the impression that only 2 grades were used. This does make a difference."

Exactly what and how large of a difference are we talking here. I assume the reference is to the overall load strenth of the towers as they increase in height. Can you clarify your remark and how it changed your thinking?

Sorry to quote the entire post.

First, It makes a difference as to the strength of the steel. A36 steel for example has a strength of 36,000 pounds per square inch (or 36 kips per square inch...a kip is a killopound or 36 ksi for short...hence the name A36). A50 steel has a strength of 50,000 pounds per square inch. That makes the A50 stronger because it can handle 14,000 more pounds per square inch.

Does that help?

BTW, I'd like to know the different steels used for the columns. Mr. Mackey quoted NIST's steel strengths but those are most likely the gauges of steel used for more than just the columns...i.e. bolts etc.

Originally posted by Valhall
Griff - don't thank Mackey for nothing yet.

Ok. The thanks goes out to you. As you've obviously done your research (much more than I have). Cheers for the information. I'll be checking out the table now.

No thanks needed. I'm sorry I didn't see your post before quoting him. There are numerous tables in 1-3B. Some are for perimeter columns, some for core columns, and some for floor truss components. As you will see, there is no discernable decrease in the average strength for a given component as you go up the floors.

Originally posted by QuasiShaman

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$$.

Thank you sir. It isn't too difficult debating those guys as long as you know your facts and can point out their errors. I've taken Rmackey to task on a couple of occasions and exposed his lies and distortions. I just hope my taxes weren't paying his bills while he was in a discussion with me.

I'm not sure, however, why a MOD here would remove two publicly available email addresses other than to make contact with them more difficult.

There are several biased mods at JREF and I have personal communication from one to support Chillzero's position and hypocrisy in moderating the forums.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
reply to post by etshrtslr

 

Jeezus pleezus! He doesn't have to prove a negative. It's up to you to show he did spend work time goofing-off.

Honestly!

unfortunately he was unable to show the math. therefore its s mute point.