It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
08:06 - Mackety explains an NIST Chart regarding pressure impulse to core columns based on aircraft velocity. Mackety also explains this chart does not take into account the impact to the perimeter columns. Mackety fails to recognize and/or acknowledge decelleration due to perimeter impact. Conclusion - misleading, intentional disinformation.
08:34 - Wieck assumes "slicing through the building is the only thing we could expect to see". Wieck fails to notice Mackety's obvious omission that the perimeter, combined with core columns, disintergrated the aircraft. Conclusion - Wieck hasnt a clue except to stroke his bias.
09:18 - Slide fails to disclose core column "impact" speed.
09:43 - Wieck calls attention to core column impact sans velocity disclosure or source.
09:54 - Mackety explains the above noted (by moving the core column to the perimeter), but Wieck fails to understand. Mackety continues deception through a small disclaimer.
10:45 - Mackety explains, "We come up with a guess". Conclusion, Mackety hasnt signed up for the Armed services based on a "guess", but many others have died based on a "guess", according to Mackety.
11:30 - Mackety - "If you're going under 270 fps, you're probably not going to break columns" Mackety does not explain which columns, perimeter, or core. However, the slide does. Mackety also does not provide solid velocity values for core column impact.
I'm going to stop there as the disinformation is just so overwhelming for one sitting combined with the fact the video is atrocious with respect to editing, and the Mackety/Wieck combo are better than any OTC/Rx sleeping pill.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Why would anyone take the word of a NASA rocket scientist who specializes in rocketry, as believable information about buildings and structural engineering and the weaknesses of said buildings when impacted by a large passenger jet filled with fuel at over 300 mph?
Originally posted by CameronFox
He wrote a 300 page white paper, Bob. He was willing to debate Dr. Griffin. Mr. Griffin refused to call.
You on the other hand refused to debate Mark Roberts a couple years ago... am I correct?
Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.
Originally posted by RockHound757
Who is Bob? Are you accusing me of using a sock?
300 pages from Mackey to refute someone he thinks is "nuts"? Now thats nuts!
If you are referring to Rob refusing to debate Mark Roberts, you're wrong... ask Ron Wieck perhaps? Need a link?
Mark Roberts did everything in his power to get the Air America show cancelled and refused debate. Read his site, he doesnt deny it.
Roberts is a joke and still has lies on his site saying Rob is an "ex-commercial pilot". Anyone who visits faa.gov will readily realize the lies told by Mark Roberts. Mark is his own worst enemy.
- Rob Balsamo
"If hes trying to take over my ship. .and all he has is a boxcutter? Im gonna grab my crash axe and chop him up... while tossing fire extingushers[sic] to passengers. .you? Or do you cower and say.. "Please dont cut me Mr. Big Bad Terrorist"
It appears CF doesnt know how to use hidemyass.com.... But spends almost everyday on the net? Naive comes to mind. Perhaps paranoid?
The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.
It isn't a question of stomping any given truther's individual pet claim. This could go on forever, and even when we do, it has no effect.
Instead, again, I am giving you the tools to debunk any claim. That is the point of the lecture. It's like Ron says at the outset: He knew the idea of aircraft crashing through made sense, but he couldn't prove it or put numbers to it. This process does that for you.
In going through that discussion, it makes sense to present an expose on claims that (nearly) everyone is already comfortable with. You don't just jump in and tackle something difficult. You practice first.
Even though the "no planer" example is only believed by the weirdest of the weird, the discussion nonetheless addresses misconceptions held by numerous people, including the same Truth Movement supporters who claim to be up in arms about no-planers. For instance, what is the value of evidence and precedent. How do you construct a model, and why. How do you establish scientific fact without having pieces in your hand. I've seen any number of people here get confused on those points.
That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by CameronFox
Oh, and to anyone that does not like to have their IP's traced and used against you... stay away from Pilot's 4 911 Truth. Rob Balsamo does this.
God forbid we wouldn't want the whole world knowing a person is a government agent or better yet, someone who has multiple accounts that were started within a month of each other when 2 of those accounts have been banned...............................
Originally posted by CameronFox
The point of the show was not to debunk any specific claim. Every one of them has already been debunked. Nobody cares when we debunk them all en masse -- for evidence, look at my three hundred page destruction of Dr. Griffin. That was about as comprehensive a squashing as I could manage. The remnant of the Truth Movement carries on like it never happened.
That is the point of the lecture -- to explain the process of scientific investigation. There are no valid Truth Movement claims and never have been, and this has been obvious to practically everyone with a science degree from day one. With this kind of reasoning, it will be obvious to you as well. And if the Truth Movement ever comes up with a reasonable claim, this is the method to analyze it. You are therefore now covered for any current and any future claim that might appear.
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by CameronFox
Besides Ron trying to pimp his mugs (reminded me of Rob Balsamo and his clocks and barbecue aprons) the shows were very informative.
Originally posted by CameronFox
Ron doesn't sell snake oil.
Part 3 has now been posted to google video. Here are some simple notes fatal to Mackey's presentation...
Example: Upper floor Mass disintgrates/shed mass outwards as lower floors remain intact.
- Ron plugs the mug. Priceless, especially when "troofers" are chastized when raising funds to keep operating. Conculsion - 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.
- 04:07 - Mackey, "Our model is very simple, we are going to leave out alot of very important things...", such as core columns in his illustration.
- 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.
.
There are many more logical fallacies and lies told by Mackey throughout Part 3. But those are the highlights.
- 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.
- 19:55 - Blatant lie from Mackey. NIST does not feel "impact damage" contributed to WTC7 Collapse.
- Mackey claims his opinion that fires were likely cause. Mackey unfamilar with OSHA Class A Skyscrapers. Mackey assumes highly flammable substances are allowed in skyscrapers. Jet fuel is not an excuse as seen in the Edna Cintron photos. Fires were not "large" as claimed by Mackey.
- Mackey completely omitted WTC 7 from entire series. Just as the 9/11 Commission.
- End of show - Ron admits the show is about debate - not lecture. Claims "No one will step up for debate". Blatant lie.