Ryan Mackey and the Physics of 9/11 on Hardfire

[Bolo Boffin]

Hardfire is a NY public access show. The host Ron Wieck has been stellar in helping debunk silly theories about 9/11, and this show proves no exception. Ryan Mackey of NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs examines the physics of 9/11 and answers such questions as "Could a plane destroy the inner core columns of the World Trade Center?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673&hl=en

It's the first of three programs. Mackey's paper eviscerating David Ray Griffin's position on the towers (among others) is available here:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This program first deals with the question: Can an airplane penetrate a steel-framed structure?

ETA: And it is a dry piece of toast!

Ryan is dealing with a simplified model that allows him to put "numbers to the problem." It's in the explanation of the numbers that the less numerically inspired among us may get lost. But that's where you can trip him up if he's wrong.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

2. I love the internet.

Even Fox News (what I remember of it) isn't this outrageously funny! Keep it up, r911 - you'll be petgoat-quality water cooler discussion fodder in no time.

[reinvestigate911]

3. thanks for outing yourselves: it is ignoratio elenchi in pure form.

the video presents a false dichotomy: the official narrative has to be accurate because it's silly to think that "no planes" struck the towers.

this nonsense is so clearly designed to be a red herring that it's laughable. it's intent is to stop serious discussion regarding the legitimate issues raised by the 9/11 truth movement... and anyone who has bothered to look closely at the legitimate questions surrounding 9/11 knows this.

so THE ONLY reason that bullshit like that exists is to dissuade civilians with a passing interest. in plain terms, that was a classic demonstration of misdirection; it is likely part of the larger smear campaign designed to make "the truth movement" look like it's inhabited by "no plane" crazies. how sad and desperate you folks must be to engage in such blatant propaganda.

if i am wrong, then please explain why a NASA physicist would waste his time debunking with "science" this long ago discarded no-plane nonsense.

further, it is clear that your intent for posting that hit job is to cause division amongst the ranks of posters in this forum. i'll bet you think you're pretty smart, huh?

fucking pathetic. you have nothing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. you're misrepresenting the video

Do I need to explain to you how you are misrepresenting the video?

ETA: Let me put it this way:

the video presents a false dichotomy: the official narrative has to be accurate because it's silly to think that "no planes" struck the towers.

No, it doesn't. This characterization depends on the "official narrative" in your head, I guess. Mackey's words belie it.

[reinvestigate911]

6. spin it however you want, it's still opinion management

trying to paint this obvious disinformation as a "public service announcement" is even more specious.
you can't honestly defend this... it lacks any integrity whatsoever. if mackey were legitimately trying to "debunk" 9/11 truth why would he waste his time with the weakest, most unsubstantiated, and easily disproved theory?

the clearest indication that that video is bullshit is the shit-eating smirk on mackey's fat fucking face.
i'm calling you guys on this bullshit... and i once again thank you for exposing yourselves.
you've been outed.

[LARED]

7. You're funny, Classic, nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. you haven't identified any disinformation, obvious or otherwise

the clearest indication that that video is bullshit is the shit-eating smirk on mackey's fat fucking face.

So you concede that you have no quarrel with the content? or just no quarrel as clear as the "shit-eating smirk"?

FYI, insulting people's appearance doesn't really enhance your credibility.

[reinvestigate911]

9. point to any legitimate research

which is embraced by the 9/11 truth movement that seeks to promote "no planes".
you can't.

if you think it is an honest portrayal of the truth movement, then please explain why a NASA physicist would waste his time "debunking" an argument that is so easily disproved without science.

the content speaks for itself. it's blatant disinformation and you know it.
arguing the contrary is dishonest. you simply can't defend it.
but be my guest... entertain us with another attempt.

[LARED]

10. So who is doing

legitimate research? A list would be helpful so the world knows which 09/11 kooks to avoid.

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. I accept your concession

As for your attempted distraction, it's simply silly. You may have a list in your head of what counts as "legitimate" research -- and maybe you can point me to the posts where you've raged against the no-planers here. (I know plenty of self-identified 9/11 truth people do think no-planes is as crazy as I do.) But that in no way mitigates the value of demonstrating how physical models can be used to rebut the specific argument that it is impossible for a plane to have penetrated the towers.

Having seen the video (yes?), you know that this is Mackey's first example, in the first of three segments. It's interesting that you're ignoring that, and it's interesting that you are misrepresenting his argument. (Your position appears to be that Mackey must be making an argument he doesn't actually make, because otherwise he would have no reason to talk about no-planes. That's, frankly and charitably, silly.)

[reinvestigate911]

12. i'll make it easier for you as you seem to completely miss the point with each of your posts

please explain why a NASA physicist would waste his time "debunking" an argument that is so easily disproved without science.

[William Seger]

15. Short answer: Because ignoring bullshit doesn't make it disappear

Longer answer, from Mackey's very first slide:



Since I believe the second and third questions fall into territory that reinvestigate911 considers to be "legitimate research," perhaps you should wait for parts 2 and 3 before embarrassing yourself further.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. actually not

Your reaction is characteristic of an adherent to sectarian dogma (granted, that could be coincidental*): you believe that you can identify the tenets of the true 9/11 movement, and that anyone who associates other beliefs with the movement is misrepresenting the movement. Unfortunately, since your movement lacks a central authority, you don't have the power to do that. And we all know that there are vocal people to this day who argue for no-planes and who self-identify as 9/11 truth movement people. For instance:

If you do a web search for “911 truth no planes,” you will find that it is largely believed in the 911 truth movement that the theory that no planes hit any building on that day is a hoax intended to discredit the movement. However, I believe that these people in the 911 truth movement who are denying the veracity of this theory are just trying to make 911 truth less extremist than it already is, in order to make it more acceptable. In other words, 911 truth is politically incorrect enough as it is. They don’t want to make it less politically correct by saying such things as “no planes hit the building” or “it was a joint US-Israel operation.” But the truth truth truth about 911 is that, though it is the least popular position, not only was it an inside job; no planes hit Towers 1 and 2; and it appears that it was a joint US-Israel operation. Why do I believe the “no plane” theory? For the following reasons: a) It is clear to almost everyone in the 911 truth movement that no planes hit the Pentagon, no planes hit Tower 7, and no plane crashed in Shanksville, PA....
http://patrickkeefe.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/no-planes-on-911/

I didn't pay this person to post this stuff; as far as I know, he is doing it on his own. I suggest the absence of a consensus within your movement. If you think that reflects intellectual dishonesty on my part, again, charitably, you are being silly. (Also obnoxious, but hey.)

If you have any serious arguments, please feel free to post them at any time.

*ETA: I'm serious here. I'm trying to leave the door open to rational discussion at any time. You need to step outside your shoes for half a moment to understand the weirdness of your claim to be able to distinguish between the real Truth Movement and the pretenders. Evidently you are angry at Mackey for making points that you, so far, agree with. That is bizarre.

[BeFree]

19. A bit of truth

"...It is clear to almost everyone in the 911 truth movement that no planes hit the Pentagon, no planes hit Tower 7, and no plane crashed in Shanksville, PA...."

Of course, some folks still believe bushco's claims that bushco investigated the whole thing and have conclusively found that bushco is innocent.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. shorter BeFree: "look! shiny!"

I suppose some people still believe that, but it has nothing to do with this thread.

[reinvestigate911]

21. i'm done here. you've been exposed.

how is a lone blogger considered representative?
you've clearly demonstrated that you aren't interested in engaging in serious discussion.
















thanks again for outing yourselves.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. "representative"?

Are you even going to try to support your position?

Lared and I would both like to see your list of legitimate 9/11 topics and researchers. We might even be able to find some points of agreement. So far, you're seeking security in obscurity.

[William Seger]

27. Bye

Yes, 911blogger is a much better place for the kind of "serious discussion" you're interested in.

[reinvestigate911]

28. in parting, a public service announcement

you can find information on 9/11 truth at the following sources:
www.911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.scholarsfor911truth.org
www.911blogger.com

thanks for the reminder to post these, bill.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Are you ever going to leave?

You keep saying you're going to leave and then you keep on posting. The spectacle of you agreeing with Mackey and then making this extended farewell tour is most interesting.

It couldn't have anything to do with seeing how handily Mackey demolishes the no-plane argument and realizing that your own fantasies are about to meet the same fate, of course. We know that you wouldn't run from a chance to expose Mackey for the fraud you believe him to be. His numbers give you the chance to do that. You must then be genuinely offended, then, that Mackey cares enough about the people trapped in plane denial to throw them a lifeline.

Anyway, are you still here? When are you actually going to leave?

[BeFree]

31. Are you still here, bolo?

Are you still trying to prove the unprovable?

What is it that you ARE trying to prove? Are YOU ever going to leave?

[William Seger]

32. The "truth movment" is the side ...

... which keeps claiming it's going to prove something or other, any year now. Why do you suppose it keeps failing?

[BeFree]

33. Hasn't failed

It has proven an awful lot. Too much for some to handle, it seems.

The OCTers haven't proven a damn thing. But they are still here. Must mean they are crying out for some truth, otherwise they'd move on.

Why are they still here?

[William Seger]

35. Sorry, but reinvestigate911 has excommunicated you from the "truth movement"

That must be a bitter disappointment after haven "proven an awful lot" about how there weren't any planes hitting buildings on 9/11.

Yes, the "truth movement" has failed -- miserably -- and now it's stuck in the tar pit, waiting for fossilization. The main reason is that that it has failed to really prove anything significant -- certainly no "inside job" theories -- and one result of that fact is that it's largely destroyed itself from within -- knife fights that have broken out because it's "proven an awful lot" that some refuse to let go while other "truthers" refuse to accept. It's "proven an awful lot" of... well, something or other, but it can't quite decide what that is.

But I'll give you one hint about why I'm still here: Another site that I read regularly (actually, more often than this board, these days) is The Anomalist.

[BeFree]

36. Nah

You just wish it had failed, that way you could move on. Since what has been proven is the awful truth that Bush lied and always lied.

Hint: wtf is your new playground, this "The Anomalist"? Are they all for proving Bush lies and will always lie, or what? Give us a hint.

[William Seger]

37. Nobody needed the "truth movement" to prove that Bush lies

But unfortunately for the "truth movement," very little of what we know about 9/11 came from Bush. It came from career civil servants, private industry, the news media, and a lot of ordinary people who lived through it -- actually, a lot important information came from people who died in it. Below in this thread, you present your silly theory that Bush must be paying a LOT of people like Mackey to lie. Elsewhere, you present your silly theories that anyone who doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job must be a Bush lover. In other words, you've "proven an awful lot" to people who aren't particularly adept at ordinary reasoning.

Same thing with most of the stories on The Anomalist, and I confess that, mostly, I just find it entertaining when people completely believe bizarre things for no particularly convincing reasons. But hey, you never know when a psychic or a "9/11 truther" will actually come up with some proof of something. At least you can't accuse me of just ignoring psychics, UFOlogists, Bigfooters, chemtrailers, or "9/11 truthers." Show me what you got!

[BeFree]

38. The fact

....that you are here, still spewing the same old argument that you know nothing except what the media and a few select individuals told you, tells everyone that you are lost and seeking the truth.

Problem is the truth you have heard is too awful, and so here you are fighting it the whole way.

[William Seger]

39. LOL

See, to keep your 9/11 delusions alive, you need to invent new delusions for why so few take you seriously. You can't face the awful truth that you've bought a truckload of bullshit. Conspiracism is downward spiral of irrationality.

[BeFree]

41. You ought to know

The belief in the Official Conspiracy Theory - OCT - has deluded many into not accepting ANY alternatives.

I know not what really happened, and that's the truth. Yet the OCTers continue to believe they do know what happened. They are the deluded. The 'Truthers' as you call them, don't believe the OTC.

It. Is. That. Simple.

Yet here the OCTers are, trying to prop up the OCT in all it's gory glory. Why is that? Why are they still here?

[SDuderstadt]

43. Because, whether you like it or not, the "OCT"...

is far more supported by science than the various and sundry 9/11 CT theories. If you can refute the science, please do. By the way, I'll beat you to the punch here. I despised the Bush administration and believe that Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for numerous things. However, planning and executing 9/11 isn't one of them.

[BeFree]

46. Far more supported?

Heh, that's the fork in your road, eh?

There isn't much science at all in the OCT. That's the problem, the science is all over the place, therefore, any thinking type of person would never exclude anything, especially the idea that Bushco could have had a hand in it. Yet there you go, saying Bushco had no hand in it. There's your fork.

Come back to the open side and realize that Bush could have head a hand in it and you will be open to everything else. Or stay on your fork.

[William Seger]

49. "There isn't much science at all in the OCT"

There isn't much knowledge at all in your 9/11 opinions.

[SDuderstadt]

52. When you can provide concrete evidence that they did...

I'll be more than glad to change my position. If, as you claim, "the science is all over the place", it shouldn't be hard for you to point specifically to where you claim it's wrong. Of course, that would assume that you're even fleetingly familiar with the science, when it's clear that you're not.

[William Seger]

47. Like most people, I'm willing to at least consider any alternative...

... that sounds remotely plausible and is supported by something remotely resembling actual evidence. So far, the "truth movement" has failed -- miserably. These days, it seems to be stuck with recycling nonsense that's already failed that test, so even the entertainment value is rapidly fading. But ya never know, huh; maybe tomorrow's postings will finally provide that elusive proof that you possess psychic abilities to divine the "truth" without using the type of evidence-based reasoning that we ordinary mortals are confined to.

It. Really. Is. That. Simple.

[BeFree]

48. So

Are you one of them that thinks Bush had a hand in it? That he knew?

Or was Bush totally oblivious?

What fork are you on?

[William Seger]

54. How would I know?

You're the one claiming you've got proof of something or other. Where is it?

[BeFree]

56. Where is it?

Now you're joking, right? Or have you taken to ignoring all the other theories?

That's your fork. Not mine. Come back to reality and see all there is to see.

[William Seger]

61. LOL, again

I don't believe I've missed any theories cooked up by the "truth movement" -- certainly not any of the ones presented on this board. And mostly what I post here are just a few of the reasons why the "evidence" for some of the more outlandish claims is, um, somewhat lacking. And I don't know of a single claim of evidence that hasn't been answered somewhere on the net. In fact, one of the reasons the "movement" sputtered out around '06 is that the truth caught up with it. Sorry, but 9/11 bullshit is certainly NOT ignored.

[BeFree]

63. Ok

So your idea is that the other fork has some rocks on it so that fork must be all bad.

But the fork you are on is covered with rosy-bush petals and is so much softer on which to walk. So that's where you'll stay.

Can't say that I blame you. This other fork is hard to take sometimes. It isn't for the light-hearted. Best you just stay safe and comfy, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

65. The other fork also is not....

for rational people who prefer evidence-based arguments. Too bad you don't have any. You should consider writing for one of the 9/11 CT sites.

[BeFree]

67. I do.

Pure rationality concludes that we don't know what happened, and anyone claiming they do know exactly what happened is irrational.

Best the weak-hearted stay on the rosy-bush fork, eh? That's cool. The rest of us will keep going til we find the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Please point out where I....

ever remotely claimed that I knew everything that happened. Do you always construct so many strawman arguments? Your either-or arguments aren't very persuasive either (to wit, your insistence that anyone that accepts the "OCT" has to be a Bush lover. Really lame.

[BeFree]

70. Good

You admit you don't know what happened. That's the first step on this fork. Now we're getting somewhere.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Dude, can you manage to get one thing right?

I said I didn't know EVERYTHING that happened. Guess what? You don't either and neither does anyone else because large scale catastrohic tragedies inevitably leave unanswered questions and are littered with anomalies. However, there are certain things we CAN know for certain. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 were top-down, not from the bottom. Do you really deny that?

[BeFree]

77. Yep

The same set of videos that I base my belief that planes did fly into the towers show the collapse from the bottom. I guess you never saw those? Maybe the cameras were lying? And maybe Bush was lying. Hmm, what do we know?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Then produce the video and you can end this argument....

Just for the record, how anyone can view the video that shows both towers collapsing from the top (at the impact point no less) and conclude that the towers collapsed from the bottom is beyond help.

[William Seger]

112. Make up your mind

> "It {the truth movement"} has proven an awful lot. Too much for some to handle, it seems."

But...

> "Pure rationality concludes that we don't know what happened, and anyone claiming they do know exactly what happened is irrational."

Say what? :wtf:

In addition to humorously contradicting yourself, it doesn't appear that you know what the word "rational" means. There are very rational reasons for believing that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and managed to crash three of them into three buildings and crash the fourth into the ground. There are very rational reasons for believing that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because of damage from those crashes and the resulting fire, as did one part of the Pentagon, and WTC 7 collapsed because of an unfought fire. Is that the truth? Well, rationality can't really tell us that; all it can tell us is that that's the best explanation for the evidence. Various factions of the "truth movement" deny one or more of these rational conclusions, but when pressed for rational reasons, we get personal incredulity and preposterous imaginary physics and bullshit "evidence" and the bald assertion that evidence proving the "official story" must have been faked. That is not rational; but if you don't understand the meaning of the word, you won't understand why I'm saying that. You claim that people aren't willing to "consider" the alternate theories that you find so fascinating because they just can't "handle" it. You aren't willing to face the awful truth that many rational people HAVE considered what the "truth movement" is selling and found it to be a poor substitute for "truth." Deal with it, and stop deluding yourself about why your "movement" has flamed out, and you will be much better off, mental health-wise.

[vincent_vega_lives]

128. That's the problem

Your definition of theory is off.

All theories are not equal. Its the same as the argument of Evolution vs intelligent design (AKA repackaged creation). A theory must be plausable and supported by evidence that is vetted by qualified parties.

The 'OCT' is, as it was carried out by thousands of individuals, multiple agenices, all of witch are experts on their field of investigaion...FBI, NIST, NTSB, FAA, ect. Joe blow doing internet research from his mom's basement does not qualify as a valid theory.

[BeFree]

60. Answer the question:

Are you one of them that thinks Bush had a hand in it? That he knew?

Or was Bush totally oblivious?

What fork are you on?

[vincent_vega_lives]

127. thats what they say about evolution

The belief in Evolution Theory - ECT - has deluded many into not accepting ANY alternatives. Like Intelligent Design?

After all it's just a theory right?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Dude, I've never said I was going to leave. Reinvestigate911 has.

When I say I'm going to leave a place, I do it. I have done it.

So put your civility hat back on, listen to the OP, and disprove it if you can. Or celebrate that the OP gives us both something to agree upon. Whatever.

[William Seger]

18. No, you are

The "truth movement" defines itself by the people who consider themselves to be part of it. Reinvestigate911 does not have any authority to kick people out.

> "mackey attacks arguments not advanced by the truth movement.
therefore, mackey is engaged in an obvious disinformation campaign."

The first assertion is not true, and the second is a non sequitur. The "truth movement" encompasses a wide variety of belief systems which are incompatible, so they argue bitterly. That's the direct and predictable result of none of the factions being able to prove their assertions -- i.e. it's exactly the same reason that religions splinter.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. also the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea n/t

[reinvestigate911]

23. i thank you all for exposing yourselves.

[LARED]

5. Nice Red Herring

the objective of this incredibly specious cable TV tripe is to "debunk" the merits of the "no-plane" conspiracies.
this clearly demonstrates yours -- and mackey's as well -- inability to come to terms with the legitimate issues surrounding 9/11.

How exactly does posting a debunking video about no-planes idiocy demonstrate an inability to discuss so called legitimate 9/11 issues?

[BeFree]

13. Could a plane?

Maybe, maybe not.

But explosives in the basement definitely could. No doubt. Happens a lot.

And as such matches the actual physics of how the towers fell at a free-fall speed only physically possible by the bottom being removed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. (gong)

A couple of problems here, but "actual physics" and "free-fall speed" are funny enough for now.

[BeFree]

24. Hey, hand

I see you are new here and you find all this amusing. Why am I not surprised?

I still think of you in carnival side-show and you're (gong) only reinforces that spectacle. Thanks!

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. not new here, and not very amused

I don't know where you were on 9/11, but I know where I was. I don't like it when people butcher those facts, any more than I like it when people butcher election facts.

You seriously think that the towers fell from the bottom? Wow.

[BeFree]

29. Know

Of course the towers pancaked. Of course the steel melted. Steel always melts. Every time there is a fire in a steel framed tower, the steel melts and the towers fall. And they fall at a free-fall speed, just like the towers did that day.

And plane wreckage is always found even if it evaporates like all good plane wrecks do. So that's why no good plane wreckage from that day was ever found.

We know that. Right? Just like Bush was elected, twice.

[SDuderstadt]

40. If you can't tell the difference between...

the wreckage left from s crash the pilot did his best to avoid and the paucity of wreckage that would result from a hijacker deliberately slamming his plane into a skyscraper at an extreme rate of speed, there's really no way to reason with you.

[BeFree]

42. Planes hit the towers

There is good video of that. And good video of explosions at the base of the buildings. But beyond that, videos are absent in providing any other OCT evidence. In fact, the rest of the videos disprove the OCT.

What the OCT says is that all other evidence pretty much evaporated. Can't be found. That steel framed buildings melt when burning. etc. etc. Unbelievable!

[SDuderstadt]

44. What bullshit....

please point to any part of the "OCT" that claims the steel framed buildings melted. Good luck.

[BeFree]

45. Eh?

The steel didn't melt? Then what caused them to collapse at free fall speed?

Of course, the OCT is really quite indeterminate of why the towers did collapse. Maybe that's where your problem lies in not knowing what the OCT says?

[SDuderstadt]

51. First of all....

neither WTC 1 nor 2 "collapsed at free fall speed". You'd know this if you knew what you're talking about. Look at any picture or video of the collapse of either tower. Notice how the debris is falling faster than the rest of the building. Unless you're claiming that the debris is falling faster than free fall speed, this disproves your silly claim.

Have you even bothered to read the NIST report(s)? I rather doubt it or you wouldn't make the silly claim that the "OCT" claims the steel frame in either tower "melted". However, the fires did cause the structural steel to lose enough of its strength to where the floor assemblies gave way and the buildings collapsed. You might have known this if you had bothered to look at the numerous photos and videos that revealed that the steel columns buckled inward well before the collapse initiation. I suspect you're too lazy to be bothered to look for evidence that disconfirms your silly CT theories, so I'll provide a few pictures below.

http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/WTC2EastFace921.html

http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/WTC2EastFace953.html

[BeFree]

55. So

You're back to the disproven theory that the buildings 'pancaked'. Sad. I thought we'd done away with that theory. After all is said and done, the NIST is just a theory.

But hey, you're free to believe what you want. It's just that the OCT science is not very good, in fact, that science has less foundation than some of the alternative theories.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Show me where I said "pancaked", dude...

I didn't.


Again, if the science is so flawed, you should be easily able to point out exactly where it is flawed and provide the math that shows it. Good luck.

BTW, I doubt if anyone here is taking you seriously, least of all, me.

[BeFree]

59. Heh

Why get so upset if you are a believer? What is your problem?

Are you new here?

[SDuderstadt]

62. No, dude....

try sticking to the argument at hand. Please point out where I said either tower pancaked.

[BeFree]

66. ....

You claim the "floor(s) fell down onto the one(s) below", causing the collapse which occurred at near free-fall speed. Right?

That was the pancake theory. If you don't believe it, why did you post it?

[SDuderstadt]

75. No, please show me where I said that....

Can you manage to get anything right? You're even enclosing something in quotation marks as if I said it? Pathetic. I'm not responding to you anymore. You have zero intellectual honesty. Bye.

[BeFree]

82. Heh

If it wasn't you, then one of the other OCTers said it. Whatever, it is the NIST that said it and is the only conclusion for that version of the collapse.

I don't blame you from running away from it, it s BS.

So, I apologize, if you never said that. There are so many of you coming at me that I lost track, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

85. That's funny....

please show where NIST ever claimed that. Hint: it was actually FEMA and they withdrew that hypothesis as evidence emerged that showed it to be wrong. Next time, please don't insult me by claiming I said something I never said, enclosing a fake quote in quoatation marks and falsely attributing it to me, then sheepishly saying, well, someone else must've said it. If you're going to try to debate, you're going to need to muster up a lot more evidence and facts, accompanied by some actual critical thinking on your part.

BTW, there won't be a next time with me, as it's clear that you're not a serious debater. Nomore responses from me...enough is enough. Bye.

[BeFree]

88. Awww

Don't get so up tight. NIST first adopted the FEMA (good job, Brownie!) melting steel theory and after the truthers disproved it they did away with it. And today (7 years later) replace it with a new one that a plane could have destroyed the center columns.

Like we say, know one knows what happened. Just accept that and move on, would be my advice.

[SDuderstadt]

90. Dude....

FEMA never advanced the theory that the steel "melted". If they did, you could prove it. Hint: you've got the pancake theory mixed up with your imaginary "the steel melted" claim. NIST nerver adopted either of those.

[BeFree]

93. I know

They gave up on those theories very quickly. And since they have nothing else, they pull out this NASA guy to hopefully prove that a plane, without a melt, or pancake, made the building collapse. Give 'em credit, we shoot 'em down and they come back with a new on every time.

[hack89]

73. The steel was weakened - no one has ever claimed that the steel melted.nt

[BeFree]

79. What about

The melted steel found in the basement? Are you denying that, too?

Of course, everyone now knows that the original theory of the steel melting was plain BS, and was proven years ago that the fires were not intense enough to melt steel, but that was the original theory that truthers disproved.

I just said it to make fun of a'bunch of you.

Still, the theory is that steel weakened and the building floors pancaked, right? If not pancaked, then what term do yall use these days?

[SDuderstadt]

81. Please show where any part of the "OCT" ever claimed...

that the steel "melted" and that's why the towers collapsed. Again, I implore you to take some critical thinking classes and try to save your rapidly plummeting credibility.

[BeFree]

84. You never read it, eh?

It was the original theory. Of course it is denied now. Geez. They ain't that stupid.

[SDuderstadt]

86. If any part of the "OCT" claimed...

that the steel melted, it should be easy for you to provide the proof. Since you can't seem to do that, we're forced to conclude, instead, that this is just another example of you talking through your hat.

[BeFree]

89. Melted steel

Well, they do still claim that the jet that hit the pentagon melted into thin air. And they did find melted steel in the basement where all the workers who were told the air was fine, worked to clean it all up.

So, who do you believe?

[SDuderstadt]

92. I don't believe anyone who said they saw...

"melted steel" unles they happen to be a metallurgist and performed the requisite tests. Given the presence of numerous metals in the building with lower melting points that steel (the aluminum from the planes, for one), it's rather silly to assume anyone saw a pool of pure melted anything as opposed to an olio of materials. Bye.

[BeFree]

95. But

You believe the OCT. And here you suggest that the planes melted? Quite the grasp you have.

"...lower melting points that steel (the aluminum from the planes, for one...)"

[SDuderstadt]

96. Critical. Thinking. Class.

Enroll. in. one. Bye.

[BeFree]

100. That's what, three Byes now?

Are you still here?

Review: No one knows what exactly happened. No one trusts Bushco. Different people see videos differently. Bombs could have taken down the towers. Maybe the planes destroyed the columns, maybe they didn't. There are still vehement supporters of the OCT. Bushco hid everything they could from the public.

That pretty well wraps it up, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. 'SOK.

Anyone who can't get sucked into a pointless flame war with BeFree must just not care very much. He's like one of those hockey players.

(ETA: Really, it's pretty wild. Way beyond moving goalposts: sorta like verbal Calvinball.)

[hack89]

108. How about all that aluminum that the towers were clad with?

are you seriously going to argue that the fires in the rubble pile weren't hot enough to melt it? Really?

[hack89]

107. The melted metal you mean?

that was aluminum - melted post collapse in the rubble fire. You do realize that the towers were clad with tons of the stuff and that its melting point was definitely exceed by the fires.

There was never an original theory that the steel melted - that was a truther strawman.

[vincent_vega_lives]

130. No the steel didn't melt

and they didn't fall at "free fall speed"

The steel was weakend, and the collapse was near free fall speed. But dont bother with the facts. :grr:

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. hi, you skipped the part where you could engage evidence

If you think that the towers fell from the bottom, show me the footage that documents it. No need to make stuff up about melting steel, or "free-fall speed," or the 2004 election. Really.

[BeFree]

58. Footage?

Years ago, there was plenty of footage of the towers collapsing from the bottom. But since you're new here you wouldn't have seen it. Stick around, it'll come along.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Wtf?

There used to be footage of the towers collapsing from the bottom? Really? So, tell me something. Have the videos showing the towers collapsing from the top (which is actually what happened) all been faked? Dude, I fear what little credibility you had left has been dispensed with accompanied by extremely loud laughter.

[BeFree]

68. Are you new here?

Have you seen the footage? Hell, I haven't seen any footage in years but I believe planes hit the towers. I don't need to see it again. Why do you?

Go look at some footage, all of it, and then get back to us. Geez, newbies!

[SDuderstadt]

72. You're not very observant, are you?

Please go to my profile and you should easily see that I'm not a newbie.

Now, as to the question you keep ducking. There are no videos that show wither tower collapsing from the bottom, because they both were top-down collapses. If it happened the way you claimed it did, where are the videos? Moreover, if it happened the way you claim it did and the videos proving it have all disappeared to be replaced by videos that show the exact opposite, wouldn't you think there'd be a huge outcry? Wouldn't that be a smoking gun for the "9/11 truth movement". Again, dude, what little is left of your credibility is dissipating rapidly.

[BeFree]

76. Have they disappered?

No way, the vids can still be found, I'm sure. They show a straight down collapse, almost at free-fall speeds. If you missed those vids then try, try again. Keep at it, your hard efforts will pay off.

As to vids that we know disappeared, how about the vids from security cams around the pentagon? What happened to those?

And didn't the CIA just admit to disappearing vids of torture? See, it happens. So don't even tell me vids can't disappear.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Jesus, dude....

it's YOUR fucking claim. If you have the videos, then fucking post them.

As to your CIA claim, unless you're claiming that NO videos of the collapse of either tower exist, it's clear that the videos we've had all along show a top-down collapse. Now, if your claim is that the videos showing a collapse from the bottom have been "disappeared", that would mean that all videos showing a top-down collapse are, ipso facto, FAKED. Yet, not one eyewitness, news organization, etc, has made any such claim. Gee, I wonder why.

[BeFree]

83. Wonder why?

Because Bushco would come down on them like a ton of bricks?

Look, if you haven't see the videos because you are a newbie to all this, that's cool. Go, seek, yee shall find.

Last time I looked, they were easy to find. Don't get so upset, it's not your fault.

[SDuderstadt]

87. If they're "easy to find"....

why can't you seem to find one????

[BeFree]

91. I ain't looking

I already saw it. And it left an awful lot of questions that you, nor anyone else, seem able to answer. Oh well.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Yeah...here's the question I can't answer.....

if your claim is true, why can't YOU prove it. Remember that critical thinking class I implored you to take? Remember to ask them to spend considerable time educating you on the "trying to shift the burden of proof" fallacy. It's YOUR claim....if you can't prove it (which you can't), I'll gladly accept your concession.

[BeFree]

97. Prove what?

That I saw a video? I'm losing your train of attack, what is it you don't believe?

[SDuderstadt]

99. You said.....

they were easy to find. Then why can't YOU find one?

BTW, critical thinking classes ARE easy to find. Your local community college will have them.

[vincent_vega_lives]

129. Oh crap

I shouldn't have read that.

:puke:

[bottomtheweaver]

17. I see the propaganda budget is shrinking fast.

National Geographic this isn't. Just as I predicted, when the Bushler gravy train stops rolling, and it's coasting to a dead halt, the propaganda war will end too and once again the rotten rebels from Texas will have lost.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. This is the 71st post in this thread

and I'd like to point out that not one of the people upset or disagreeing with the OP video have presented any cogent argument against it. There has been a lot of storming out, and a lot of talking about many things indeed, but taking Mackey's words and numbers and showing them to be wrong? That hasn't happened yet.

So I'm taking this as a concession of the point. No one can show how Mackey is wrong, so they are a) unqualified to deal with the simple equations and modeling he presents, b) aware that Mackey is right but desperate to distract from this by posting irrelevant garbage to make it seem like an discussion on the OP is taking place, or c)??? -- profit?

The second part will be posted soon, I'm sure. And then we can all watch the detractors try to obfuscate and distract from that one, too. Like I say, Ryan is dry, dry, dry, but he is right, right, right. He's putting numbers to the problem, something that the snake oil salesmen from September Clues to David Ray Griffin refuse to do. It should be easy enough to demolish his numbers. But the drama continues.

By the way, if anyone would like to understand the terms and the equations, just let me know. I'd love to sort through it with you. Real questions always welcome.

ETA: Changed "69th post" to "71st post". Wow, the drama is fast and furious around here! I just wish it tried to deal with what Mackey is saying.

[Realityhack]

101. Bolo...

Is there a transcript anywhere? Or is this material from existing papers etc.?

Oops... those might be honest questions... hope I didn't wreck the thread or anything.

[Bolo Boffin]

103. I've not seen any transcript yet. I don't know that Hardfire does them.

And I don't know if Mackey uses this no-plane debunking in his paper, since David Ray Griffin doesn't go there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

104. here I go being "fair" again:

I think r911's gripe is that Mackey is arguing against what r911 regards as a straw man. I also think that's a pretty silly gripe, but I'm not sure it fits into any of your categories.

I look forward to the next installment, which I think will pose bigger substantive problems for r911 (or maybe I've lost track of who believes what). Not that I expect r911 to engage substance, but hope springs eternal.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Yes, this is true.

However, r911's fleeing over this particular issue seems rather forced to me.

Anyway, Mackey's full slide set is here:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryanmackey

[OnTheOtherHand]

109. thanks for the link

I've much enjoyed Mackey's white paper, but wasn't aware of the slides until this OP. Checking them out now....

I don't disagree about r911.

[jakeXT]

98. I only watched 2 minutes of it

Who is this Ronald Wieck ?

He starts by mentioning that he wants to stay away from politics and focus entirely on the science.

After he lists what the 911 truth movement didn't achieve (06/07/08), he mentions that Bush/Cheney are out of office. The Democrats are in control of both houses and the new president promises to undue virtually all of Bushes policies.


I'm not sure if I should continue watching it,and who cares about "no planes" ?

[Bolo Boffin]

106. There is a mistake in this video

One that Mackey has already admitted to.

Who shall be the first to stop the distraction from the OP in this thread and find it?

[whatchamacallit]

110. What a low rent piece of crap

Thanks for another earth shaking douchebunkery.

[SDuderstadt]

111. This is just what I'd expect a "trtuther" to say when...

they can't disprove Mackey's math. Thanks for not disappointing.

[whatchamacallit]

113. I'm not a "truther" anymore than you're a republican apologist troll

Luckily we are neither of those... right?

[SDuderstadt]

114. I'm glad you're going on the record....

So, you're denying that you're a "truther"? Cool. I guess that means you support the "Official Story" then, right? After all, isn't that what debunkers are accused of all the time?

BTW, I'm not impressed with your backhanded attempt to paint me as a "republican apologist troll" Please show me where I have ever been an apologist for the republican party. In fact, at the meetings of Drinking Liberally I attend, I am rather well known for my loud diatribes against the GOP and, especially, RWers. If you're not sure who or what I am, I am a proud, lifelong liberal Democrat since I voted (and worked) for McGovern in the first election in which I was eligible to vote. I am also a progressive Democrat who is deeply embarrassed by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" and firmly believe that their disdain of science and their tendency to regard dedicated career civil servants from NIST, the NTSB, etc., as government shills is appalling.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am, by no means, saying there aren't aspects of 9/11 that aren't worth investigating (intelligence failures, the Bush administration asleep at the wheel, Bush/Cheney's willful exploitation of 9/11 to launch a war in Iraq, as well as numerous crimes for which I would love to see them both tried, indicted and convicted). However, that hardly means that "9/11 was an inside job" or that the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition or that 100+ witnesses did not see AA77 crash into the Pentagon (and, more telling, NO witness saw a missile hit the Pentagon).

I'll match my liberal credentials against yours anyday. However, I think it's hysterical that you deny being a "truther".

[whatchamacallit]

115. Why should I allow you to label me with the OCT euphemism for kook?

I simply don't swallow (balls and all) the official story.

[AZCat]

116. The "Official Story" doesn't have balls.

That's Judy Wood.

[SDuderstadt]

117. For the same reason....

you labeled Bolo's OP "low-rent crap" and "douchebunkery". See how that works? I noticed you have no substantive critique of Mackey's work. Why is that?

Further, you seem to bristle at being called a "truther" because you feel we debunkers are "labeling" you guys as kooks. Gee, I wonder why someone would think that. Oh, I remember...if you look at a number of other threads, we have some suggesting that the WTC was brought down by "mini-nukes" or that two USA 175's took off from Boston (although no one can seem to exlain why that would even be necessary or why the "perps" would be so sloppy). Equally silly is the claim that 9/11 was really about stopping an investigation of IPO's by the SEC. If you're not getting my drift, I'll spell it out. Nutball theories like this embarrass our liberal movement and should especially embarrass the "legitimate" 9/11 truth movement. So, tell me something. Why don't you guys go after these embarrassing theories yourself?

[whatchamacallit]

118. You don't speak for my "liberal movement", boss

I will thank you to keep your smug, closed minded, establishment loving, orthodoxy, out of my politics.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Another one of your stupid strawman arguments

Please tell me how my political leanings are "closed-minded, establishment loving" or orthodoxical. Please be specific. Then exlain to me why the "liberal movement" has not raced forward to join the "9/11 truth movement".

[whatchamacallit]

120. Sure no problem, just remember you asked

For a "progressive" your thinking seems remarkably binary. Everything is black or white, all or nothing, with us or against us... You like to conflate issues and merge theories so you can scornfully dismiss all of them at once. There's a rigidity to your beliefs that belie your stated liberal leanings. I won't go on.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Please explain how my thinking is "remarkably binary"

Better yet, please explain how it is black and white. Please explain how I have, in any way, suggested that anyone is either "with us or against us" (your claim is even more ironic as I just pointed out an example of an either-or argument. In fact, I consider that there are a whole range of beliefs between "9/11 was an inside job" and "there's no way the Bush administration would murder thousands of its citizens". Please point out specifically where I "have conflated issues and "merged theories" so I can "scornfully dismiss them all at once". Were you paying attention when I gave examples of 9/11 matters that I believe SHOULD investigated?

Your dumbest claim is that "there is a rigidity to (my) beliefs that belie (my) stated liberal leanings. Do you understand how evidence works? If I am a liberal, should I say, "well, some people think 2 +2 =4 and some people think 2+2 = 5, so let's split the difference and call it 4.5"? I've got news for you. dude, if you think people who require evidence of claims can't be liberal, then you've got another think coming. Speaking of rigid, how flexible is it clinging to 9.11 myths long after they have been totally debunked?

In the spirit of the OP, can you refute Mackey's math?

[whatchamacallit]

122. You were the one who insinuated

my lack of mental conformity threatened our, apparently homogeneous, Liberal Movement. Look man, I never said you can't require evidence and be a liberal, that's your lame strawman. You on the other hand, have repeatedly stated that all us idiots who don't believe the Bush administration, and feel there are way too many questions still unanswered, are somehow ruining your party.

[SDuderstadt]

123. Dude....you just don't get it, do you....

I NEVER trusted the Bush administration for a moment, especially after the SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency (don't get me started about Bush v Gore). I have no problem with anyone questioning the Bush administration. But, that, in and of itself, does not prove that the Bush administration in any way planned or executed 9/11. That requires evidence which is sorely lacking.

I never said a word about your "lack of mental conformity". I am, instead, pointing to your lack of evidence. Do you remotely understand the difference? I think it would be delicious if we could somehow prove that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11. That would put Bush and Cheney away for a long time, at the very least. Alas, the evidence just isn't there. In the nearly 8 years since 9/11, the "9/11 truth movement" has utterly failed to put together a credible, coherent alternate hypothesis about what happened that day, which is why it lags behind in attracting new adherents. Question all you like. But, don't expect me to believe your accusations without solid evidence.

Additionally, please try to stick to the subject matter rather than implying that I'm demanding mental conformity. Your persecution complex is showing, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

124. How did you manage to turn a statement about me (not trusting bush) into a statement about you?

Oh, that would be *your* persecution complex. What do you want SDude? You seem to be asserting that because none of what you deem as evidence has emerged in the 8 years Bush has had dictatorial powers, that no evidence exists and we should just fold up our tents and go home. Is that what you believe? What would you do with yourself if we did?

[OnTheOtherHand]

125. literacy, perhaps?

It doesn't seem like a big stretch to interpret "all us idiots who don't believe the Bush administration, and feel there are way too many questions still unanswered, are somehow ruining your party" as insinuating that SDuderstadt does believe the Bush administration.

I can't speak for SD, but what I like in the way of constructive intellectual discourse is some effort by all parties to distinguish among what is known, what is likely, what is possible, what is barely imaginable, and what is (barring collective hallucination) wrong. Scientific inquiry thrives, with a minimum of energy wasted on repetitions and ad hominems, when scientists who may have different theoretical orientations all at least attempt to play by the same epistemological rules. Lots of us have seen this; lots of us have done this. It actually isn't very hard.

Did you intend to state an objection to the Mackey piece? Do you have an objection to the Mackey piece? Or do you regard this flame war as an end in itself?

[vincent_vega_lives]

132. Ahhh no

the "idiots who don't believe the Bush administration" are NOT ruining the party, and NO ONE here EVER made that claim. BTW it's the Obama administration now who you have to disbelive in now on 9-11 truth.

It's the idiots that make ignorant claims based on semi-understanding of physics and engineering that are runining the party.

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. Come ON now

There is a HUGE difference in just not swallowing "balls and all" the official story...and speculating the WTC towers were blown up with mini-nukes, thermite, fake planes, ect.

If you insist on the latter expect to be labled a kook by certain segments of this forum.

[Bolo Boffin]

126. A cleaned-up "director's cut" is now available

The one in the OP was the rough cut. Now the final version is on Google Video. This is what will air:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2542809949154243077

It's still cable access. But amidst the dryness of the topic is real science.