Ryan Mackey, Nasa Scientist Proved Incorrect, or lying if he won't concede Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Semi-infamous government story defender/psuedo-skeptic/scientist Ryan Mackey has been proven incorrect in regards to this conclusion that he came to based off his own calculations:

"there is no case to be made that the FDR data is inconsistent with the impact of Flight 77"

But here is what he calculated for necessary g forces based off the NTSB reported altitude:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/miscellanious/mack_AA77_scale.jpg)


He basically created a hypothetical scenario that spreads the g forces out evenly from the top of the VDOT tower to the Pentagon wall and calculated that a constant 4 g's would be necessary for the plane to pull out of the dive and hit the building low and level with the ground as shown in the security video and required by all physical damage.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/pentanimxox1rt.gif)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/composite1.jpg)

A complete breakdown and dissection of his incorrect conclusion is available in this 13 minute presentation.


So although this may be theoretically "possible" for a 757 as a hypothetical scenario, contrary to Mackey's claims, this is completely irreconcilable with the NTSB data that records an average of 1.17 g's for that segment!

Although he is now aware of this "error", the response from Mackey so far is that the FDR data mysteriously stopped recording all data 6 seconds before alleged impact point but this has already been proven false by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in this presentation.

In fact g forces are recorded all the way up to the alleged impact time of 9:37:45, and as stated earlier they show an average of 1.17 g's for that segment which is clearly a HUGE difference from the necessary 4 g's calculated by Mackey.

So because 4 g's is nowhere to be found in the official data, Ryan Mackey's own calculations based on the NTSB reported altitude PROVE that the data is irreconcilable with an alleged impact as reported.

Since Mackey specifically stated the opposite, he has been proven to be in error.

Since he is aware of this and has been unable to refute it yet has failed to admit his error, he has now been proven deceptive.

Would a real scientist/patriot deceive to cover up fatal anomalies in the official story?

The only other response he has given is that the plane could have started the pull up earlier and much more gradually to account for even less than 4 g's.

However once again this contradicts the NTSB data for g forces. The alleged FDR does not show and has not recorded any positive load required to pull out of this dive "gradually" for the segment prior to the required descent into the building. In fact, it shows less than 1 G for that segment which represents a "pushing forward" motion on the yoke, as seen in the animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB, instead of a "pulling level" motion required.

This post is to give Ryan Mackey the opportunity to do what honest scientists do when they are proven incorrect.....and that is to admit their error.

Rob Balsamo from Pilots for 9/11 Truth had the professionalism to admit his error when it was pointed out that he was wrong in his initial article about this issue.

If Ryan Mackey refuses to do so, he will have been proven to be a liar.

It's that simple.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Sep 19 2008, 06:46 PM

[rob balsamo]

If others wont say it.. i will.

Mackey is a liar, plain and simple. No one that adept and current in math makes such unintentional mistakes/claims. Its also another reason Mackey refuses to debate P4T.

The reason a person like Mackey is 'dangerous', is the fact he probably uses such formulas on a daily basis, yet his bias affords him the opportunity to deceive. Another good indication why he refuses to debate P4T. Although he has been exposed for the liar he is, he will still try to spin through theory. We dont expect to see Ryan Mackey taking on anyone from P4T anytime soon, even on "Hardfire" with a biased host, as Mackey has already proposed a "debate" filmed solely for himself with zero opponents.

The guy is a complete joke.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Look what he is saying to Turbofan now trying to hold on to the notion that the alleged FDR "stopped" recording all data 6 seconds before alleged impact.

NTSB states the impact time at :45

There is data written with time stamps at :45

The two are probably correlated. I suspect NTSB states impact at :45 because that's the last valid timestamp. But, again, as you yourself note, the FDR is showing the aircraft still in flight and still well above impact at :45. Therefore, the FDR proves impact did not occur at :45. Assuming the FDR clock is correctly calibrated, of course.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

He is clearly not this stupid.

If that is what he "suspects" then why do they keep saying lat long coordinates stop here?
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/NTSB_RADESComparativeAnalysis03.jpg)

Obviously if that's the case, yet the other values are reported up to 6 seconds later which is reported as 9:37:45, it's clear the other values are recorded up to alleged impact.

Dude is spinning HARD because he KNOWS he's busted.

Hell even I'd debate him now!

[rob balsamo]

I suspect NTSB states impact at :45 because that's the last valid timestamp

Mackey 'suspects' wrong. And is another reason why he refuses to debate P4T.

[dMz]

Quick, back up your answering machine messages and computer hard drive before the next electrical storm!

The transients can re-write your data! I swear it's true, Mackey said so!

He also thinks the NTSB impact time is incorrect and off by six seconds, but DME recorded 1.5. The kid is not
too swift when it comes to FDR data. Like you both have already revealved his g figures are not even reflected
in the data file.

Despite that fact that nearly every aerospace cable harness that I can recall was shielded and redundant-grounded specifically for transient and "noise" control, maybe Mackey is fishing inside one of these:

http://eed.gsfc.nasa.gov/562/ESD_Control_LunchLearn.pdf

http://workmanship.nasa.gov/ws_esds2020.jsp

http://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference...-STD-8739-7.pdf

http://www.fancort.com/pdfs/NASA_STD_8739_2.pdf

http://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20b...quirements.html

http://www.esda.org/standards.html

I recall needing ~800 V spark for ESD to "crater" a semiconductor surface, and it's a very permanent, destructive effect.

[rob balsamo]

There is a reason Mackey will not crawl out of his the govt loyalist site cave and debate real experts.

I say let him spin it up, at least he uses his real name... (or does he...? never tried to verify Mackey, but its clear he is too intimidated to even debate real pilots who can be verified via faa.gov).

[dMz]

3400-g rated solid state FDR (SSFDR) data:

(IMG:http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3489/gone60cdm7.th.jpg) (IMG:http://img206.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif)

[Leslie Landry]

3400-g rated solid state FDR (SSFDR) data:

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4...X290_SY216_.jpg

(IMG:http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4MzQzMTQxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwODYwNjg5._V1._SX290_SY216_.jpg)

Referral Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg4MzQzMTQxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwODYwNjg5._V1._SX290_SY216_.jpg" on this server. Reference #24.1f51293e.1223359359.10357de0





That's what i got D (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[dMz]

Looks like it must have been a server backup Leslie- it works now, but I uploaded the image to a different server anyway.

[SPreston]

Although he is now aware of this "error", the response from Mackey so far is that the FDR data mysteriously stopped recording all data 6 seconds before alleged impact point but this has already been proven false by Pilots for 9/11 Truth in this presentation.

In fact g forces are recorded all the way up to the alleged impact time of 9:37:45, and as stated earlier they show an average of 1.17 g's for that segment which is clearly a HUGE difference from the necessary 4 g's calculated by Mackey.

So because 4 g's is nowhere to be found in the official data, Ryan Mackey's own calculations based on the NTSB reported altitude PROVE that the data is irreconcilable with an alleged impact as reported.

Since Mackey specifically stated the opposite, he has been proven to be in error.

Since he is aware of this and has been unable to refute it yet has failed to admit his error, he has now been proven deceptive.

Would a real scientist/patriot deceive to cover up fatal anomalies in the official story?

This post is to give Ryan Mackey the opportunity to do what honest scientists do when they are proven incorrect.....and that is to admit their error.

If Ryan Mackey refuses to do so, he will have been proven to be a liar.

If others wont say it.. i will.

Mackey is a liar, plain and simple. No one that adept and current in math makes such unintentional mistakes/claims. Its also another reason Mackey refuses to debate P4T.

The reason a person like Mackey is 'dangerous', is the fact he probably uses such formulas on a daily basis, yet his bias affords him the opportunity to deceive. Another good indication why he refuses to debate P4T. Although he has been exposed for the liar he is, he will still try to spin through theory. We dont expect to see Ryan Mackey taking on anyone from P4T anytime soon, even on "Hardfire" with a biased host, as Mackey has already proposed a "debate" filmed solely for himself with zero opponents.

The guy is a complete joke.

Two weeks have gone by and still no admission of error. In fact he has his flunkies still pushing his erroneous nonsense over at ATS.

Some NASA scientist he is. It seems Ryan Mackey is a deliberate liar. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

[dMz]

Jim Hoffman on Ryan Mackey's "debunking"
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

More on Mr. Mackey's paper
http://truememes.com/mackey.html

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...ackeyLetter.pdf

At 911blogger:
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=www.9...D%3A1&hl=en

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081?page=3

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11016

[dMz]

Having read Mackey's "papers" 1.0 and parts of 2.0 (is it up to 2.1 now?), I would advise putting a 10- or 20-page limit on any Mackey "refutations" requested, in interests of time efficiency for all of us.

Is version 1.0 of Mackey's paper still available anywhere (it was only about 180 pages IIRC)? Perhaps Mr. Mackey has some unknown motiviation for his verbosity.

EDIT: Yup, looks to be 2.1 now on Mackey's paper. If anyone is interested here 313 pages' worth are in Word .DOC and .PDF formats.

On Debunking 9/11 Debunking

by Ryan Mackey

http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.doc

http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This was interesting from the Change Log for Version 1.1: "Superficial cleanup, all sections. Contact author for tracked changes."