Ryan Mackey, NASA Scientist and Staunch Official Story Defender Caught Telling Blatant Falsehood About NIST

They sure tell some whoppers over there, and most of them are pretty transparent, but boy does this one take the cake.

In response to an OP's legitimate points which indicate controlled demolition, Mackey says the following:

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

Hmm. Really?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

This kind of modus operandi is nothing new for OCT defenders.

Mark Roberts, Apologist for EPA Lies

"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." - Mark Roberts, leading "debunker"

Are you sure Makey is actually a NASA scientist?

I wound up running across Makey when stumbling onto JREF not too long ago, after seeing the absurd National Geographic "9/11: Science and Conspiracy" program and looking for a forum to discuss their ridiculous excuse for "science" on. Makey, beyond defending the sham of a program, confronted me with an assortment of inane arguments. Most notably was that which he presented in his whitepaper, where in his appendix B he uses some crude calculations to calculate an approximation of the potential energy released in the demolition of the towers, and the goes no to argue "This result also proves that... Dr. Griffin’s hypothesis calls for [approximately 48] tons of high explosives". This argument being a ridiculous false dichotomy; suggesting that the destruction of the towers had to be the result of either gravity or explosives, as if when explosives are used gravity no longer applies.

In response, he completely ignored the flaw I had pointed out in his argument and strawmaned me as being ignorant of calculus, arguing that I was not worth conversing with before putting me on ignore. Apparently, he is so haughty over his use of an integral to approximate the distribution of mass throughout the building that he considered it some major intellectual accomplishment, and deluded himself into believing my argument was based in an inability to understand such equations. Furthermore, the whole whitepaper was filled with absurdities beyond which I would ever want to waste my time addressing in full. So, given that experience, I'm left to believe he is not attempting to spew falsehoods, but rather simply doesn't have the head on his shoulders to know better. Hence, I have to seriously doubt the claim that he is a scientist of any sort, let alone one which NASA would ever employ..



I agree Makey seems not to be a NASA scientist or any kind of scientist other than the kind of 'PR' spin Scientist we see at NIST.

There are many examples, but here's a couple from his white paper.

He says....

"If we were to drop a heavy,
streamlined object from this height, such that air resistance was negligible"

This shows an ignorance of "air resistance" because the mass of his 'heavy object' is enough to make air resistance negligible without the need for streamlining. If he's a NASA scientist he should know that.

I could go on..

He like Bazant performs some slight of hand in calculating PE he includes all of the tower in his calculation, effectively assigning mass from the lower more massive tower to the upper less massive block thus increasing its apparent Potential Energy. He gives 409 GJ as the total PE and then suggests that we divide this by 110 to get the PE per floor = 3.17 GJ per floor.

Makey then goes on to say ...

"Immediately, we should begin to suspect that the amount of energy just from gravity
alone – almost a ton of TNT per floor – is enough to cause the destruction seen on
September 11th"

However if you calculate (using Urich's mass numbers) the actual PE for a 3.7 m drop of the first floor crushed we get ~ 1GJ, Makey has effectively tripled the PE for the first 3.7 m drop.
Now Empirically the block has a KE at the first impact of ~ 670MJ leaving just ~330MJ to destroy structure and do everything else.

So in reality (Empirically) ~ 330 MJ is actually lost which is < 80 kilos of TNT equivalent or < 8% of Makey's 'ton of TNT'.

oh and just one more ...

Makey states ....

"The 96th floor will accelerate as it falls, and decelerate with each impact,"

Again Empirically, we see no deceleration (Missing Jolts) at all in any impact, that's zero deceleration at any time in the first 3 and a half seconds that can be accurately measured.

Makey clearly is not an Empirical Scientist.

We have our own NASA scientist

Dwain Deets!

So bring it on Mackey! "Ut Venia Omnes" indeed. (Or whatever bastard Latin you put in your signature.)

As for the PE per floor...the mass distribution in the towers is obviously uneven considering the change of mass of the steel members from bottom to top so Mackey's calculations are so far off as to be almost meaningless..right?

As for those "TNT-equivalent" soundbites...they annoy me. But fittingly ironic considering the fact that WTC 1 & 2 were probably blown up. But note they repeatedly use this TNT-equivalent to either invoke associations with Hiroshima (airplane impact energy release) or to have us believe floors dropping onto each other behave like large volumes of dynamite going off. It's a clever mind fuck, like the mantra "collapse" "collapse" "collapse".

Even more funny, Mackey's own theories are at odds with Bazant. Therefore, even Mackey thinks the official explanation by Bazant is incorrect.

The General Consensus is that Bazant is wrong - no deceleration

"Mackey's calculations are so far off as to be almost meaningless..right?"

I think the meaning is that Mackey is dishonest, because his calculation appears to account for the change in mass distribution through the building, but by subsequently dividing his total PE by the number of floors (110) undoes his seeming acknowledgement of the facts of the mass distribution.

Its dishonest science, his argument has the flow and structure of an honest argument, but then like Bazant, performs this slight of hand with the PE calculation to produce his 'ton of TNT' per floor which he then claims

"is enough to cause the destruction seen on September 11th,"

which is possibly true, but the actual measured energy supplied to the collapse is < 80 kilos TNT in the first 3.7 m, a rate that is not enough cause the destruction seen on September 11th.

Go Dwain!