Ryan Mackey and the Physics of 9/11: Part Two

[Bolo Boffin]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=818452846525611...

This is the rough cut (I believe) of Hardfire, a New York City cable access show produced by the Libertarian Party. The host is Ron Wieck and the guest is Ryan Mackey, a scientist working for a NASA contractor and author of the David Ray Griffin takedown, http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf">On "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

This is the second of two parts. Ryan finishes his presentation of the first program's topic and continues to the second, "Could a plane destroy the inner core columns of the World Trade Center?"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438">A more cogent and disciplined discussion of these videos is going on at JREF. Because Mackey's choice of topics proved so controversial in the thread on the first part, I'm reproducing Mackey's explanation for choosing his topics from that thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4515411&postcount=69">What I'm doing here is not a defense against no-planers. That's just an example. What I'm doing is walking through a process, using those claims as a foil. That's all. Now, the process I'm walking through is the one that you need a lot of help with, namely how does one create theoretical evidence.

When scientists don't have the easiest bits and pieces, this is the process we follow -- modeling and physical reasoning. Say we want to study the core of the Earth, or stars, or what have you, we don't just throw up our hands and say "darn, I'll never know." We start with what we do know, or what we can reasonably describe, and see what happens.

That's the process I walk through here. I don't have any aircraft fuel at my house. I don't have any steel columns. I don't know precisely what the plane was made of. But I don't need any of these things. These are all items that are pretty well understood, and so it's a piece of cake to come up with a representative model. As a result, even without the tiniest fragment of any of the objects under consideration, I can come up with an estimate good to +/- 20% or so. That's what I demonstrate here. I produce an estimate of impact pressure, impulse, and required speed to cause structural damage, and I verify that those predictions are correct.

This is how science is done. Obviously having actual pieces is better, but that's not the whole story. Not by a long shot. Evidence is simply anything we can observe, and reconstruction is a completely valid way to gather that evidence.

Later on, Mackey says, "...the purpose of my mathematical model is to motivate construction of a physical model. The mathematics don't capture everything that happens in real life, and they never will -- we're just doing the best we can. But the physical model will have all the features of reality. It is reality."

That is what I am challenging the defenders of the controlled demolition idea to do -- present a physical model of what happened on 9/11, according to your view. Only a couple have ever done so, and the results were less than stellar. To my chagrin, I was one of the people who piled onto Spooked911's bunny cage model and mocked it (led the charge, even). But at least Spooked tried to develop a physical model of what happened. I should never have tried to discourage him from that. On the contrary, I should have given him better critiques to help him improve the model.

And Mackey's examples and explanations could help Spooked and any other controlled demolition advocate develop a physical model that accurately reflects the forces involved in these physical events. You can put numbers to these problems and they will be real.

Enjoy the second program.

[BeFree]

1. Well

Finally the NIST is going to do such a model (guessing here about model) on how bombs could have taken down #7.

Maybe Mackey will do the same with the twins? I mean, he's so smart, has the $$ backing and all.... what's he waiting for? Or has he already decided that the buildings could not be CD'd? I mean, heck, the NIST has pretty much, without any known study, decided that bombs are out of the question with the twins but are open on #7.

Go Mackey, do everything you can do. Don't stop there, unless you are scairt.

[vincent_vega_lives]

2. I am really amiss

as to your point. I'm sure any half-assed engineer could come up with a model of how explosives could have caused the tower's to fail. Just as anyone could come up with a model that substitutes the 767s with comets.

What exatly would be the point of that I have no Idea.

The clam by CT'ers are that they COULD NOT have fallen WITHOUT explosives...isn't it? Hence the point of this.

[BeFree]

3. No

The claim is that bombs did take down the towers.

And that the way the towers were observed falling is evidence that bombs did the trick.

Mackey's point is a counter to claims that an airplane couldn't cause the damage. And they say we haven't done anything.... heck, we got Mackey to make an attempt to prove that it happened the way Bushco says it did. We sure have some growing power, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

4. So you aren't going to put numbers to the problem.

You're just going to sit back and throw potshots at Mackey and NIST, who did put numbers to the problem.

Let's look at what you consider an adequate response to the OP:

Finally the NIST is going to do such a model (guessing here about model) on how bombs could have taken down #7.

The OP considers a question about the towers, not Building 7. Why you even bring NIST into this discussion is only understood by me to be a distraction tactic.

However, you would know if you'd read the NIST final report on Building 7 that NIST actually did consider hypothetical bomb scenarios. None of their models fit the available physical evidence. If you could submit one that does, you would be advancing the cause of 9/11 Truth immeasurably.

But you will not. You never will. That's my prediction.

Maybe Mackey will do the same with the twins? I mean, he's so smart, has the $$ backing and all....

Mackey will not be doing the same with the twins, as bombs bringing them down is not his claim. It is your claim, you and your fellow controlled demolition advocates. It is your responsibility to do this.

And as Mackey made clear in his first video, he is doing this debunking work on his own time and on his own dime. So your implication that he's getting paid to do this is baseless and simply a smear tactic.

Or has he already decided that the buildings could not be CD'd? I mean, heck, the NIST has pretty much, without any known study, decided that bombs are out of the question with the twins but are open on #7.

This is factually inaccurate. NIST has spent a great amount of time and energy constructing models of all three buildings to understand how they collapsed. They've done their work. They have put numbers to the problem, numbers that anyone can verify and question. And NIST has also explicitly ruled out bombs in Building 7. It is up to you and your fellow controlled demolition advocates to develop a model that coheres both to reality and explains how bombs could have taken down these buildings.

But you will not do this. You will simply throw potshots from behind your fortress of ignorance.

Go Mackey, do everything you can do. Don't stop there, unless you are scairt.

And now you're playing childish games instead of acting like an adult and putting numbers to the problem. This is the attitude that robs 9/11 Truth of all serious purpose.

Of course, if you actually sat down and put numbers to the problem, there would be no 9/11 Truth Movement, at least not one that played controlled demolition games.

[BeFree]

5. Wow

You spent some time on that one, eh?

And when I read the NIST it said they would like to know how a bomb could have taken down #7 (paraphrased), not that they DID, as you state.

Basically, like Mackey said, "Evidence is simply anything we can observe,"
and my observation is that Mackey felt the need to show how a plane could do the trick, not that it did.

Furthermore, we observed typical bomb blast type movements. No need for numbers, observation suffices. But since Mackey is on a roll, why stop there? A true scientist never stops, does he? And the NIST will do #7, so that's a start, we're getting somewhere.

Oh, BTW, this isn't about me, so really, you shouldn't focus so much on me, but that's just me. Nor is it about you. But it is about Bushco, the Widows, the PENTTBOM, and the thousands of innocents, but not you. It's about a full investigation, leaving no stone unturned.

You should stick to that, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

6. NIST did consider hypothetical blast scenarios. Please stop repeating factual inaccuracies

You say you "read the NIST". That is a very strange phrase. Did you read the final report on Building 7? If you did, you could hardly have missed the section on hypothetical blast scenarios.

This isn't about you? Well, until you present any actual modeling of a controlled demolition scenario, all you've got is you. Get busy and put some numbers on the problem. Actually contribute something to this thread besides baseless attacks and senseless statements.

[BeFree]

21. So they did

Of course I haven't read the whole NIST blitz. One would have to be a ..... oh, never mind.

The NIST claims a blast would have made a sound and the tapes had no sound that sounded like a blast, is about all I read of their hypothetical. Now, if you're interested in educating us, please do a cut and paste, or a direct link to make it easily findable, and I'll go to it. If you want. Don't do it just for me.

But really, like someone else said, most engineers could put up the numbers on how to do a cd. So I don't need to. It's really quite easy for someone in the biz. And we know it could have been done.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. "The NIST claims a blast would have made a sound"

Is that something you question?

[wildbilln864]

23. are you claiming now...

that no one heard explosions? :popcorn:

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Why don't you put your crystal ball away?

Your mind-reading skills aren't too good.

[wildbilln864]

27. you're right I know...

I don't read minds. That's why I asked. Witnesses claim to have heard explosions. Are they lying do you think? If not why are those sounds not on the videos? I don't know. Do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. No, you're playing stupid distraction games.

I have no doubt that the sounds heard and described by witnesses are indeed on the videos.

But explosives no one heard, because they were not there.

[wildbilln864]

32. many reported hearing explosions!

boom, boom, boom! :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

33. We have been over this and over this, wildbill.

Nobody heard explosions consistent with explosives.

Nobody.

The seismographs would have shown signature recordings than trained eyes could see. Trained eyes saw no such thing.

NIST's hypothetical blast scenarios would have had massive sounds that would have traveled down Manhattan streets, breaking every glass window in the vicinity. All of the glass didn't even break in WTC 7 as it fell.

The explosives would have caused severe ear damage to the people standing nearby. These injuries didn't happen.

The explosions that these people heard were not explosive devices used to demolish the towers.

[wildbilln864]

34. "Nobody heard explosions consistent with explosives."

that's your opinion.

"NIST's hypothetical blast scenarios would have had massive sounds that would have traveled down Manhattan streets, breaking every glass window in the vicinity. All of the glass didn't even break in WTC 7 as it fell."
Why do you make such assumptions?

"The explosives would have caused severe ear damage to the people standing nearby. These injuries didn't happen."
More opinion!

"The explosions that these people heard were not explosive devices used to demolish the towers."
And more opinion!

[Bolo Boffin]

35. No, that is not my opinion. That is fact.

If you would read the NIST report talking about the hypothetical blast scenarios, you would understand why.

ETA: And your distraction from the OP continues, I see.

But we can save this. The modeling of the hypothetical blast scenarios is something that fits into the ideas that Mackey is trying to communicate. You can lift yourself out of your "Nuh-uh" mindset, wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

36. When there is a real investigation...

I will.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. By examining the numbers that NIST has put to the problem, wildbill

and by showing them to be wrong, you will help get an "real investigation" going. Better yet, YOU WILL BE DOING IT.

NIST put their numbers on the line. Show how they are wrong or produce your own better model.

Wildbill, we've known each other for quite a few years now in this extremely limited way. Tell me something:

All of your cheerleading, all of your kicking years-old threads, all of your "Nuh-uhs", how much closer have they gotten you to your "real investigation?"

[wildbilln864]

38. Bolo...

How much closer? I cannot say. I can say that all of my cheer leading(that's two words BTW for when you may need to caption it.) has been for good reason.
And I do see that more and more are becoming aware that we have all been deceived and there needs to be an investigation. Even in this dungeon more are coming to look into this subject.
And there may never be any investigation no matter what I do but I will continue to call for one and to expose the many reasons there needs to be one. Here and elsewhere. I think the victim's families deserve the whole truth! And I want to know that I don't have to fear my government harming or allowing harm to it's citizens.
It's not about me bolo, nor you. To me it's about a better country and better world for my grandsons! So time will tell I guess whether we ever get any closer.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. http://www.google.com/search? q=cheerleading

One word.

[wildbilln864]

40. yes, you're correct, my mistake and....

I apologize. My spell checker was wrong apparently. It wouldn't let me type it as one. :shrug:

[BeFree]

26. I'll repeat it, this time slowly

The NIST claims a blast would have made a sound and the tapes had no sound that sounded like a blast, is about all I read of their hypothetical.

That is all I read of their hypothetical... that the tapes they listened too had no blast sound. They went on to deny eyewitness accounts. They base their findings on the T A P E S.

If you have more and want to link it, go ahead.

I base most of my findings on the tapes SEEN.

Maybe the difference between all of us is that some of us trust the government more than others do?

[Bolo Boffin]

29. "about all I read of their hypothetical." You should read more and stop evading questions

Do you question whether or not a blast would make a sound? This question isn't hard.

And NIST did a lot more than say the sound would be on the tape. They did this thing called modeling. They constructed a model of the hypothetical blast event based on sound science and they demonstrated quite a few things with it. You should read it. Any PDF of the report you can search. Use the term "hypothetical blast event." You'll go straight to the section.

Read. Learn the answers.

[vincent_vega_lives]

16. WTF in your mind are

"typical bomb blast type movements"?

Experienced with those type of movements are you? Holy shit that's good. :rofl:

[Twist_U_Up]

8. So if NIST is headed by Bush-appointed officials,

then is it fair to say that the Bush administration is, in effect, investigating itself?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. You know, if you could demonstrate how NIST was wrong

then you might have a point about political decisions at NIST.

For example, most scientist decry the Bush science about climate change. But they put numbers to the problem. It isn't enough to say, Bush polluted the process. You have to show that the process was polluted. The climate change politics have been thoroughly exposed.

And yet as far as NIST's modeling of the towers is concerned, 9/11 Truth advocates feel content simply making the charge of political corruption at NIST, but don't demonstrate any actual corruption. The numbers are right there. Show us how they don't add up, and then you might have a point about political corruption at NIST.

Or alternatively, put your own numbers to the problem and show how your modeling explains the physical evidence better than the NIST modeling. That's what we're asking you to do. You could actually learn something besides feces-slinging if you followed Mackey's example and put numbers to the problem.

[Twist_U_Up]

13. If you belive the NIST all of this MUST be true

Of course all Demoltion Companies have now stopped using explosives, following the discovery on 911 that buildings can be bought down by lighting a few small fires . . . The discovery that not only will this bring down a building in hours rather than days provides a significantly cheaper costs revolutionizing the demolition industry.

Demolition companies are make huge cost savings after paying off to lay off highly skilled workers. The new science is thought to have profound effects on the construction industry as now all the worlds sky scrappers need to be rebuilt, and off course before that can happen the old buildings need to be removed by demolition.

The Universities are preparing for a huge influx of Qualified Architecure Practioners who need urgent re-trainning, and fire departments world wide are also re-training.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Your post there has a distinct lack of --

Your post has a distinct lack of --

1. Any actual disputing of the physical modeling done by either the OP or the NIST final reports.

2. Any physical modeling (putting numbers to the problem) of your own hypothesis for how the buildings were destroyed.

Your post also doesn't make sense. Why would demolition companies employ the collapses of the WTC buldings as example of how to do it? The cleanup took FAR longer than the total time of a well-planned controlled demoliton would have taken from planning to cleanup. Saving labor costs? In the months-long cleanup process? Plus the damage to surrounding buildings... there is nothing at all that recommends the WTC collapses as viable examples of cost-saving measures to controlled demolition companies. Please get real.

[BeFree]

20. Well

Who paid for the clean-up? The owner or the public?

Just how would they go about taking down the towers cost-effectively?

Looks to me like, somehow, someway, somebody got a pretty sweet deal.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Have you been to Ground Zero? Do you understand the full extent of how the collapses threatened

Manhattan?

Let's not even worry about the buildings nearby which were severely damaged, several to the point of having to be torn down themselves.

The collapses threatened the bathtub, the massive barrier against the Hudson. If it had gone, the Hudson would have flooded the subway system. How does any demolition planner think that's some acceptable parameter to just letting the building fall?

I cannot believe you are trying to defend this ludicrous argument.

[BeFree]

28. I'll repeat it again, try not to divert

Who paid for the clean-up? The owner or the public?

Just how would they go about taking down the towers cost-effectively?

Looks to me like, somehow, someway, somebody got a pretty sweet deal.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Now you're just playing stupid games.

Until you're ready for an adult discussion, this is done.

[Twist_U_Up]

7. This free advertising has been brought to you by people who follow mystical spoonbenders.

Tell jref and his merry mind controlled freaks to at least have the decency
to buy an ad.

Enjoy your Googlebomb, folks.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Truther "logic"....

critical thinking adherents are actually "mind controlled freaks". LOLOLOL.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. People who follow mystical spoonbenders?

There are very few people at the James Randi Educational Foundation who do that. Most people there rather enjoy Randi's constant debunking of mystical spoonbenders like Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller.

You must be confused.

And your Googlebomb comment might have a point if Ryan Mackey was soliciting cash for anything. On the contrary, the Hardfire program is public access and all of Mackey's materials are available for free. He doesn't even accept donations. So "free advertising" is a rather ludicrous attack on this series.

Did you have any other comments that actually dealt with the OP, or are you taking your place behind ignorance in order to throw stinkbombs with others?

[vincent_vega_lives]

17. State of Confusion

How's the weather there?

[wildbilln864]

18. yet another valuable contribution to this thread! Thank you...

NOT!

[AZCat]

19. I don't think it is possible for a post to get any more ironic than this one.

How could you, of all posters, have the audacity to criticize the quality of another person's post?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

14. deleted