Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

[JamesB]

Kevin Ryan replies to Ryan Mackey, in one of those famous "peer reviewed" letters at the Journal of 9/11 Stundies.

He makes it all the way to the second paragraph before launching the ad homimem attack.

Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work
includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that
his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken
with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic
increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for
the military-industrial complex.

http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

I guess David Ray Griffin was too busy trying to bend spoons or something.

[tomwaits]

A brief visit to Randi’s forum indicates that the participants are largely
anonymous, and somewhat emotional, defenders of the official conspiracy
theory.


um...has he ever been on the internet before? if he wants my full name, he can have it.

[R.Mackey]

Mr. Ryan has never attempted to contact me via e-mail, which is odd since I provide that e-mail on the cover page of my whitepaper. I don't regularly read sites that claim to be "journals," but are not.

It is also untrue that I work on "strike aircraft weapon systems." I have, in the past, done work for the Joint Strike Fighter, but not on weapon systems.

Reading through his nonsense, it is interesting to see him reversing his claim about the energy argument -- where he takes NIST's number for the energy required to vibrate large amounts of SFRM off of panels, and then states that the SFRM actually absorbs that energy, as though it was actually strong stuff -- to say that he got it not from NIST, but from Wierzbicki. I've discussed Wierzbicki's calculations here with Gregory Urich, and his estimates of energy shortages are off, simply because Wierzbicki uses a radical overestimate of core column size. In his paper, he finds a picture of a core column from the bottom floors, and assumes incorrectly that those columns stay the same size as on the impact floors, which is wrong by about an order of magnitude. That, of course, puts the best possible spin on his comments. It's hard to say exactly what he's claiming. There is no energy shortage, and there's no way he can possibly hide behind that claim. It's verifiably wrong, no matter how he spins it.

The last bit about his failed wrongful termination lawsuit is quite a laugh. I'll leave it at that.

Ultimately, I think he's made a grave tactical error in issuing any reply at all, particularly one so pathetic as this one. Here's why: The JONES has now acknowledged, and even referenced, my whitepaper. They can't claim ignorance anymore. Mr. Ryan has given the impression that he's read, and indeed understood, my whitepaper. Well, if so, he has three choices:
Refute it properly (this won't cut it, for obvious reasons),
Acknowledge his errors and those of the Truth Movement, or
Demonstrate his total incompetence or dishonesty in maintaining his position.
I'll get around to an update including the "critical response" in a bit. It's a busy month for me, and perhaps this is just the beginning of a new wave of comedy...

[tomwaits]

And, of
course, a “lengthy retelling” of UL’s legal troubles with me is not yet
necessary, considering my first lawsuit against them lasted less than a year
and our legal team has not yet submitted the next complaint.

i can't wait...:popcorn1

[JamesB]

But you used "we" way too many times, and people here use pseudonyms (in fact I hear that JamesB is not that guy's real name). Consider yourself owned buddy! :D

[tomwaits]

just wait until he finds out that chucksheen is not actually charlie sheen!

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, the "We" thing is pretty funny.

Particularly coming from a "journal." One would think they'd never, ever read a real journal article before.

The "We" is not royal, nor is it haughty, it's accepted style in formal technical writing. "We" refers to two people, the author and the reader. It's a compromise between personalizing the paper ("I show this and that" -- the paper's not about the author, it's about the science) and the dreaded passive voice ("It is shown that Mr. Ryan is totally wrong"). Entirely SOP.

What a clown!

[JamesB]

Yeah, the "We" thing is pretty funny.

Particularly coming from a "journal." One would think they'd never, ever read a real journal article before.

The "We" is not royal, nor is it haughty, it's accepted style in formal technical writing. "We" refers to two people, the author and the reader. It's a compromise between personalizing the paper ("I show this and that" -- the paper's not about the author, it's about the science) and the dreaded passive voice ("It is shown that Mr. Ryan is totally wrong"). Entirely SOP.

What a clown!

Well considering Ryan's entire academic resume consists of:

B.S. Chemistry, Indiana University

It is entirely possible that he has never actually read a real journal article before.

[cmcaulif]

Yeah, the "We" thing is pretty funny.

Particularly coming from a "journal." One would think they'd never, ever read a real journal article before.

The "We" is not royal, nor is it haughty, it's accepted style in formal technical writing. "We" refers to two people, the author and the reader. It's a compromise between personalizing the paper ("I show this and that" -- the paper's not about the author, it's about the science) and the dreaded passive voice ("It is shown that Mr. Ryan is totally wrong"). Entirely SOP.

What a clown!

clearly 'we' refers to you as well as the 'higher ups' who commanded you mix that heinous batch of kool aide for the sheeple.

BTW, he can't be serious with page 5 can he?

But it is
possible that Mr. Mackey has not yet fully explained how those multidirectional,
perfectly symmetrical ricochets could have so efficiently
removed all the fireproofing from five floors of the towers (that’s what NIST
means by widely-dislodged) without the need for any energy.

I think the removal of fireproofing is the weakest part of the NIST theory because of the uncertainty associated with assessing the condition of fireproofing in the tower, but I am quite sure they did not claim that all of the fireproofing was stripped over five floors.:rolleyes:

[uk_dave]

Yeah well, 'truthers' aren't known for their ability to either understand or accurately represent the studies they seek to critique.

[R.Mackey]

BTW, he can't be serious with page 5 can he?

I think the removal of fireproofing is the weakest part of the NIST theory because of the uncertainty associated with assessing the condition of fireproofing in the tower, but I am quite sure they did not claim that all of the fireproofing was stripped over five floors.:rolleyes:

No, NIST did not. NCSTAR1-2B clearly describes the zone of predicted fireproofing removal, floor by floor, case by case, and it's nowhere near the total area of five floors.

Another amusement is his insistence that I'm using a "zero energy loss ricochet." :D Yeah. I'm assuming that after ricocheting, pieces retain all of their energy to damage more parts of the structure.

Read that again slowly.

Find the bug?

Here's the bug: If it isn't a "zero energy loss ricochet," then the energy is lost in an inelastic collision. But energy is conserved. Even Mr. Ryan surely must know this. So where did it go? Why, into deforming what the pieces hit, of course. Causing damage.

I believe this is called "having your cake and eating it too," or by its newer, 9/11 Conspiracy specific name, "the Gordon Ross principle."

[Dave Rogers]

A brief visit to Randi’s forum indicates that the participants are largely
anonymous, and somewhat emotional, defenders of the official conspiracy
theory.

um...has he ever been on the internet before? if he wants my full name, he can have it.

This is astonishing. Ryan is criticising Mackey, whose name, place of work and e-mail address he knows, on the basis that some other people post anonymously on the same internet forum? This is as good as when MirageMemories accused us all of hiding behind screen names.

Tell me, is it worth reading as far as page 2?

Dave

[Mr. Skinny]

It is also untrue that I work on "strike aircraft weapon systems." I have, in the past, done work for the Joint Strike Fighter, but not on weapon systems.
Well, to my way of thinking, the Joint Strike Fighter is, itself, a "weapons system" so it's probably splitting hairs to criticize that statement.

[JAStewart]

Cricky Mr. K, haven't you ever heard of the internet?

Maybe Kevin Ryan should read some these pages:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=do+not+give+out+personal+details+on+the+internet&spell=1

[Apollo20]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

[uk_dave]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!


Yes it does. Ryan would have people believe he is something which he is not. So the term 'waterboy' merely points out that he's actually something he wishes he wasn't.

And I agree that the collapse of the towers is serious, I just don't think the conspiracy theories or the theorists are worthy of being taken seriously.

Over to you, James......

:D

[bje]

Note the "requirements" for having a letter published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

"The requirements for publication of letters will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering previously-published questions before posing more queries, and avoiding “straw-man” and ad hominem arguments."

[Good Lt]

I think it's interesting to compare the submission criteria/instructions for a real, peer reviewed scientific journal and the *snort* "criteria" required for letter (let alone any) publication in the 'J'O911S.

Publication criteria and instructions for JAMA (http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/ifora.dtl)(Journal of the American Medical Association). Dozens of links, instructions, criteria, categories, rules, etc.

Publication "criteria" for "J"o9-11S:


"The requirements for publication of letters will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering previously-published questions before posing more queries, and avoiding “straw-man” and ad hominem arguments."


:dl:

[Drudgewire]

My real name is Drudgewire and I'd appreciate these twoofers not making an issue out of my parent's obvious massive drug usage. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[Sabrina]

*silently points to her screen name* Need I say more?

In actuality, you guys are in an unusual situation as regards my username; this is the only forum where I've used my actual name (albeit only my first name) as my username, largely because I was kind of bored of the other one I tend to use and couldn't think up a better one on the spur of the moment. C'est la vie. :D

[tsig]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

We would not want a double standard Apollo20. Why do you piss on your degree this way?

Should we kiss your ass in the morning or at night?

[JamesB]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

No, I don't think he is worthy of consideration and discussion, anymore than I consider the theories of Willis Carto worthy of discussion, I think he is worthy of mockery. To the best of my knowledge the user agreements pertain to treatment of fellow board members, they do not require you to be polite to people who don't even post here, otherwise the political forums would be quite boring. Ryan has obviously visited this forum, but considered us beneath him and did not post. If he were to visit I would address him politely.

[Brainster]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

Maybe we could go with "Lyin' Ryan"?

[~enigma~]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.He tried to pass himself off as a manager of uL while he was a fired manager of a water testing plant. Aquaboy...Aquaman.....deal with it.

[JamesB]

Regarding this part at the end. What exactly has his lawsuit discovered? As far as I can tell the only thing that was discovered was that he did not have a case.

But it doesn’t take a US government scientist to know that suing for
wrongful termination in Indiana is not a high probability venture. Couple
this with the fact that suing UL in this case is really a matter of taking on the
US government and the Bush Administration’s entire power story, and we
all know pretty much what to expect. That means my legal actions against
UL are much like the fight for truth overall - it’s not about a final reward,
it’s about discovery. Of course, anonymous government apologists are not
likely to know much about that.

But then again, I am just an anonymous government apologist, so what do I know? :D

[DavidJames]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.During initial interactions with anyone I try to be friendly and respectful. Once they reveal that they, through deception and disingenuous behavior, begin accusing people of mass murder without due process, my respect for them all but disappears. The fact that you are concerned over the name used for him and have no comments on his "work" and it's implications is interesting.

[~enigma~]

I got one paragraph in his Aqualetter but just didn't see the point in wasting any more time after he wrote

But for reasons that may shortly become obvious to the reader, a point-by-point rebuttal of Mackey’s lengthy paper is not necessary.

[jhunter1163]

*silently points to her screen name* Need I say more?

In actuality, you guys are in an unusual situation as regards my username; this is the only forum where I've used my actual name (albeit only my first name) as my username, largely because I was kind of bored of the other one I tend to use and couldn't think up a better one on the spur of the moment. C'est la vie. :D

As I've commented elsewhere, I'm not a big enough fish in the debunking pond for anyone to bother with harassing me (my successful smackdown of a Twoofer at the ESPN board notwithstanding). My real name and city of residence are in my profile; anyone who really wanted to get in contact with me could find me with little trouble. The trouble would begin if they actually tried to harass me: they would then reap the whirlwind that is Mrs. Jhunter1163.

[~enigma~]

As I've commented elsewhere, I'm not a big enough fish in the debunking pond for anyone to bother with harassing me (my successful smackdown of a Twoofer at the ESPN board notwithstanding). My real name and city of residence are in my profile; anyone who really wanted to get in contact with me could find me with little trouble. The trouble would begin if they actually tried to harass me: they would then reap the whirlwind that is Mrs. Jhunter1163.
Weird, you both share the same screenname and birthday :)

ETA - Anonymous internet poster :)

[LashL]

I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

It is not a double standard, Apollo, unless the illustrious waterboy is a member posting here.

[Swing Dangler]

Kevin Ryan replies to Ryan Mackey, in one of those famous "peer reviewed" letters at the Journal of 9/11 Stundies.
He makes it all the way to the second paragraph before launching the ad homimem attack.
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf
I guess David Ray Griffin was too busy trying to bend spoons or something.
Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that
his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken
with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic
increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for
the military-industrial complex.


So defense spending does not benefit people who work for the M/I complex? I'm not why you labeled this as Ad Hom if it is true. Just a simple fact is all.

[~enigma~]

It is not a double standard, Apollo, unless the illustrious waterboy is a member posting here.
Didn't Lyin Ryan the waterboy extraordinaire use Aquaman as a screename somewhere?

[JamesB]

The more I think about this, the weirder it gets. In his paper Mackey gave his full name, e-mail address, academic background, and current job. Ryan on the other hand gave nothing more than his name, but then repeatedly attacked him because some members on a forum that he mentioned in passing are anonymous. Bizarre. I am seriously starting to think this guy has some sort of mental or emotional health issue.

[Minadin]

So defense spending does not benefit people who work for the M/I complex? I'm not why you labeled this as Ad Hom if it is true. Just a simple fact is all.

It's an Ad Hom because it attacks the motivations of the arguer rather than his actual position (argument). Once again, you have failed to discern what an Ad Hom really is, and how it differs from an insult. Congrats.

[jhunter1163]

I would divulge Mrs. Jhunter1163's name and birthday, except that I've been warned that if I ever put any of her personal information on the Internet, she wouldn't make the mistake Lorena did of throwing it where the cops could find it. So, anonymous she will be.

[LashL]

Mr. Ryan has never attempted to contact me via e-mail, which is odd since I provide that e-mail on the cover page of my whitepaper. I don't regularly read sites that claim to be "journals," but are not.

He is incapable of direct discussion with you because he knows that he isn't fit to shine your shoes when it comes to your vastly superior knowledge of the relevant issues. Instead, he has to resort to sending a snide - and grossly inadequate - "letter" to a two-bit fake "journal".

That is pretty much standard fare for the twoof movement's brightest lights.


The last bit about his failed wrongful termination lawsuit is quite a laugh.

Indeed. :D

I'll get around to an update including the "critical response" in a bit. It's a busy month for me, and perhaps this is just the beginning of a new wave of comedy...

Looking forward to it!

[beachnut]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.
There is no mystery terrorist caused the collapse of the twin towers; if you missed that fact on 9/11 maybe you do not understand impact and fire caused the failure. Maybe you need a few systems engineering courses to understand 9/11. But the cute "water boy" name is pretty tame for a liar and the fraud Kevin is. The entire 9/11 truth movement is full of lies and is misleading others. You seem to be a veiled truther looking for the chemical signature to blame the evil government. You can debate the cause of the WTC failure all you want, you can make up names like "NISTIANs", but "water boy" is a cute name for a vile person (he may be too dumb to understand he is an idiot). You seem to be the one with name calling classification fetish.

But 9/11 was simple, cut throat, take plane, impact tower, fire, failure. The details prove this is the simple cause. It was too simple. and millions of rational people understand.

You understand gravity and the WTC final failure, but you seem to be looking for something to pin on some evil doers. For the past 6 years thousands of experts have studied the WTC and are making improvements in buildings and other areas.

Seems like the impact and fire cause, discovered by me on 9/11 will hold up long after "water boy" learns how to understand 9/11. Terrorist caused the fall of the WTC, albeit they may not of expected it, but then we still have impact and fire. The debate at JREF is on how can anyone be stupid enough to miss the real cause.

Kevin's work is not worthy of anything but mockery. Sorry, you need to get a grip, Kevin Ryan's work has zero merit. (did I miss something?)

[LashL]

A brief visit to Randi’s forum indicates that the participants are largely anonymous, and somewhat emotional, defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Most of their efforts appear to be focused on smearing those questioning the government’s version of 9/11, or defending that version with imaginative claims that even the government wouldn’t support. With this in mind, it’s not difficult to predict that this new work from the scientific hero of the JREF crowd is not particularly useful or informative.


Aside from the obvious ad-hominem nature of the foregoing, this paragraph from Waterboy's "letter" also demonstrates how poor and superficial his research skills are. One can only conclude from the paragraph above that he thinks the conspiracy theories sub-forum constitutes the entirety of the JREF Forum. What a moron.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=R.Mackey;3214760]Mr. Ryan has never attempted to contact me via e-mail, which is odd since I provide that e-mail on the cover page of my whitepaper. I don't regularly read sites that claim to be "journals," but are not.
Why should he? Did you contact him before writing your 'white paper'?

It is also untrue that I work on "strike aircraft weapon systems." I have, in the past, done work for the Joint Strike Fighter, but not on weapon systems.
Wow, Ryan I'm surprised you would offer this error as an early rebuttal.
Now did you or didn't you work on JSF which is what the DOD describes as a strike aircraft weapon systems?

The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. Source: Joint Strike Fighter Website! (http://www.jsf.mil/) LOL

You realize you are wrong and Kevin is right when describing the project you actually worked on! :newlol

I think now you understand why Kevin R. doesn't need to issue a 200 page rebuttal to your white paper to point out your errors.

The last bit about his failed wrongful termination lawsuit is quite a laugh. I'll leave it at that.
So why did you reference that at all in your paper? Oh yeah, a subtle character attack.

Ultimately, I think he's made a grave tactical error in issuing any reply at all, particularly one so pathetic as this one. Here's why: The JONES has now acknowledged, and even referenced, my whitepaper. They can't claim ignorance anymore. Mr. Ryan has given the impression that he's read, and indeed understood, my whitepaper. Well, if so, he has three choices:
Refute it properly (this won't cut it, for obvious reasons),
Acknowledge his errors and those of the Truth Movement, or
Demonstrate his total incompetence or dishonesty in maintaining his position.
I'll get around to an update including the "critical response" in a bit. It's a busy month for me, and perhaps this is just the beginning of a new wave of comedy...

Hey, you could have just typed: I'm going to dodge this response by Mr. Ryan at this time because he just made me look foolish on just a couple of points in my paper.

[Swing Dangler]

Aside from the obvious ad-hominem nature of the foregoing, this paragraph from Waterboy's "letter" also demonstrates how poor and superficial his research skills are. One can only conclude from the paragraph above that he thinks the conspiracy theories sub-forum constitutes the entirety of the JREF Forum. What a moron.

LashL-He is incapable of direct discussion with you because he knows that he isn't fit to shine your shoes when it comes to your vastly superior knowledge of the relevant issues
Brainster-Maybe we could go with "Lyin' Ryan"?

Chillzero-Mod WarningEverybody, stop it now, please. This thread has become far too personalised.Please address the arguments, and do not attack the arguer. If this continues, the thread may be split, or just moved, to Abandon All Hope.
Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...
Kevin Ryan's rebuttal to Rmackey....Most of their (JREF members) efforts appear to be focused on smearing those questioning the government’s version of 9/11

[Good Lt]

Hey, you could have just typed: I'm going to dodge this response by Mr. Ryan at this time because he just made me look foolish on just a couple of points in my paper.

Except that this never happened - Kevin Ryan's 10-page "response" is little more than a whimper that does nothing to refute Mackey's work.

[John Blonn]

Swing Dangler: Changing the world one forum post at a time.

[Drudgewire]

Swing Dangler: Dumbing down the world one forum post at a time.
Fixed that for you. ;)

[Quad4_72]

[quote]

Wow, Ryan I'm surprised you would offer this error as an early rebuttal.
Now did you or didn't you work on JSF which is what the DOD describes as a strike aircraft weapon systems?



What part of "not on the weapons systems" did you not understand? There is more to the JSF then weapons systems.

[beachnut]

Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...
Too bad no a single person can support Kevin's work with facts or evidence. Not you, not anyone. Why? Why is all of 9/11 truth fact less? Swing, you can not answer anything 9/11 and back it with facts. Why? Now Kevin publishes a simple letter attacking the person, no facts to attack the paper. Why? You can not answer these questions due to the fact you and 9/11 truth have none.

When you add up all the efforts of 9/11 truth and those like you who support the crazy ideas of 9/11 truth, you come up with bunch of zeros. Failure is 9/11 truth.

Why do people fall for the fraud of 9/11 truth?

[slyjoe]

Swing: Try this link for your research on what makes up the J-35 instead of the first paragraph on the website.

http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_org_airvehicle.htm

[tsig]

Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...

edit

[Mooseman]

Swing
Ryan is wrong, you do know that?

[Swing Dangler]

[quote=Swing Dangler;3216023]

What part of "not on the weapons systems" did you not understand? There is more to the JSF then weapons systems.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you understand that R Mackey stated Kevin Ryan was wrong when in fact he was right?
Go back and read Mackey's original comment and then feel free to not respond to this comment
The JSF is a weapons systems as described by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ryan Mackey did work on a strike fighter weapon system, ie. the JSF.

[kookbreaker]

Intellectual Bankruptcy, thy name is Swing Dangler.

[Hellbound]

If you can't mine for gold, you can always pick for nits.

Nothing says "Victory" like arguing semantics.

[uk_dave]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you understand that R Mackey stated Kevin Ryan was wrong when in fact he was right?
Go back and read Mackey's original comment and then feel free to not respond to this comment
The JSF is a weapons systems as described by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ryan Mackey did work on a strike fighter weapon system, ie. the JSF.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of why there is little to be gained by treating the arguments put forth by 'truthers' with the respect they so desperately crave. There is no nuance in woowooland, there is no context, and there is no vernacular. It's all plain, black and white.

And, of course, it's much better (and safer) for the 'truthers' to argue on one minute interpretation of an insignificant passage of text, than to face up to the consequences of their beliefs and actually venture into the the real world and do something real about it.

We see it with Malmoesoldier, swingdangler et al and quite frankly, the next time someone bitches that we don't treat them respectfully enough, I may just type 'bollocks!' and be damned.

[Swing Dangler]

Except that this never happened - Kevin Ryan's 10-page "response" is little more than a whimper that does nothing to refute Mackey's work.

Did you read the 10 page response?

[tsig]

[QUOTE=Quad4_72;3216127]
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you understand that R Mackey stated Kevin Ryan was wrong when in fact he was right?
Go back and read Mackey's original comment and then feel free to not respond to this comment
The JSF is a weapons systems as described by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ryan Mackey did work on a strike fighter weapon system, ie. the JSF.

And people are poop producers if you want to look at it that way.

[Good Lt]

Yes. Color me unimpressed.

This quote in particular jumped out at me, because it suggests that Ryan gave up trying to refutes Mackey's work and went for the route of whining instead.

But for reasons that may shortly
become obvious to the reader, a point-by-point rebuttal of Mackey’s lengthy
paper is not necessary.REALLY. Then why write anything? You've got nothing to say.

K. Ryan has about 10 footnotes, among which are either the Urinal of 9-11 Truth, AmericanBuddhist.com, 9-11Truth.org., etc. Bulletproof.

Did you read Mackey's thorough 200 page rebuttal and refutation of DRG's nonsense?

Kevin Ryan's letter does NOTHING to refute anything Mackey wrote. It does EVERYTHING to suggest that Kevin Ryan is a bitter fraud.

[tsig]

Did you read the 10 page response?

Did you?

[Quad4_72]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you understand that R Mackey stated Kevin Ryan was wrong when in fact he was right?
Go back and read Mackey's original comment and then feel free to not respond to this comment
The JSF is a weapons systems as described by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ryan Mackey did work on a strike fighter weapon system, ie. the JSF.

So Swingy, if I install a car stereo in an automobile does that qualify me to work on the engine as well? There are many different complex systems in the JSF, and the weapons system is one of them, which Mackey said he did not work on. Why is this hard for you to understand?

[rwguinn]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you understand that R Mackey stated Kevin Ryan was wrong when in fact he was right?
Go back and read Mackey's original comment and then feel free to not respond to this comment
The JSF is a weapons systems as described by the U.S. Department of Defense. Ryan Mackey did work on a strike fighter weapon system, ie. the JSF.
And if you dig into the literature, you'll find that the F-35 Lightning II is a
Weapons DELIVERY System. It is not a weapons systems itself.

Take it from one who knows.
IPT Wing
Subsystems Tech. Lead.
Me.

[Garb]

You realize you are wrong and Kevin is right when describing the project you actually worked on! :newlol

The F-35 is the next generation strike fighter bringing cutting-edge technologies to the battlespace of the future. The JSFs advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and firepower will ensure that the F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft

The JSF is a fighter. Just because it includes weapons systems doesn't mean that that is all it is.

[16.5]

Wow, waterboy is walking a fine line at THE Journal of 911 Something or other, by calling out all the anonymous posters at JREF! You see at THE Journal, they strongly discourage anonymous letters. Oh hells yes they publish them, of course, all the time. But they are discouraged you see.

[Crungy]

Kevin Ryan replies to Ryan Mackey, in one of those famous "peer reviewed" letters at the Journal of 9/11 Stundies.

He makes it all the way to the second paragraph before launching the ad homimem attack.


Quote:
Mr. Mackey refers to himself as a US government scientist, whose work includes the production of “strike aircraft weapon systems.” This means that his involvement in the discussion of the truth about 9/11 should be taken with the understanding that the official story of 9/11 supports an historic increase in military spending, and therefore benefits people who work for the military-industrial complex.



Typical Aquaboy defense. He did the same to my company and a co-worker. Aquaboy couldn't actually debate the evidence with a respected structural engineer, so he simpley dismissed his argument with a breath of "He works on gubmit jobs! He can't be trusted to tell da twoof!" Absolutely amazing. You'd be hard pressed to find any leading architects and engineers who haven't worked on government contracts. At the moment I have on my plate, several US Army proposals, a big oil company report and a large urban security upgrade, which was brought upon by 9/11. Can't trust me either.

Sorry Apollo20, but Aquaboy is a slandering paranoid tool who deserves no respect from the professional world.

[uk_dave]

Can't trust me either.



We knew that already.........

.....seen your expense account. :D

[jhunter1163]

Quote:
But for reasons that may shortly
become obvious to the reader, a point-by-point rebuttal of Mackey’s lengthy
paper is not possible.

Fixed that for Waterboy.

I only call him that to distinguish him from Ryan Mackey.

[Molinaro]

I don't understand how people can keep on taking the time to clearly explain things to truthers.

I realy don't think they deserve the REPEATED effort. They don't deserve it based on their own behaviour.

Every discussion follows the same format:

1) Truther makes claim
2) Claim is refuted
3) Truther ignore refutation, pretends it never hapened
4) Truther makes some other claim
5) Other claim is refuted
6) Truther either goes back to claim 1) or instead some other claim, all the while ignoring all points made against their claim


It's like arguing with a 3 year old. They deserve every insult they get because of their own actions in these discussions.

And what truly makes it all so very, very funny to watch. The truthers invariably end the discussion the same way.
They claim victory and walk away patting themself on the back.

How do you do it? How do you get riduculed in so obvious a manor, over and over, and yet somehow delude yourself into thinking you won something? How do you just ignore every point of physics/engineering that makes you the fool, while giddily pointing to some irrelevancy and claiming victory?

But please don't stop. I look forward to the idiocy. It's better than any sitcom on tv right now.

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, to my way of thinking, the Joint Strike Fighter is, itself, a "weapons system" so it's probably splitting hairs to criticize that statement.

And if you dig into the literature, you'll find that the F-35 Lightning II is a
Weapons DELIVERY System. It is not a weapons systems itself.

Take it from one who knows.
IPT Wing
Subsystems Tech. Lead.
Me.
I'm willing to concede to your definition, but again, I think it's splitting hairs.

I suppose that since I live in the laboratory world, anything that actually ends up going on an aircraft is loosely called "something" that is used on a "weapons system", be it a bomb, sensor, engine, or whatever. I suppose you Lockheed folks call it a "weapons delivery system".

Still not worth arguing over, IMO.

[funk de fino]

Wow, Ryan I'm surprised you would offer this error as an early rebuttal.
Now did you or didn't you work on JSF which is what the DOD describes as a strike aircraft weapon syste

Wow, i'm not surprised you are making rubbish mistakes again.

Fighter Aircraft are weapons delivery platforms. If you only work on the engines you do not work on weapons systems. I used to work on weapons systems and if he had claimed that about me he would have been true.

Not in Mr Mackey's case though case though.

Fail again

[Swing Dangler]

And if you dig into the literature, you'll find that the F-35 Lightning II is a
Weapons DELIVERY System. It is not a weapons systems itself.

Take it from one who knows.
IPT Wing
Subsystems Tech. Lead.
Me.

Garb-The JSF is a fighter. Just because it includes weapons systems doesn't mean that that is all it is.
It isn't a weapons system itself? Hmmm I wonder why the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program describes the JSF as a weapons system?

Sorry but your arguing against....
The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems (http://www.jsf.mil/) for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The F-35 is the next generation strike fighter bringing cutting-edge technologies to the battlespace of the future. The JSFs advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and firepower will ensure that the F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many warfighters across the globe.

RMackey worked on a program that created a strike aircraft weapon systems,ie the Joint Strike Aircraft is a weapon system. Now Rmacky may have not worked on the 'weapons' on this weapon system, but the point remains true when Kevin Ryan states he worked on the strike aircraft weapon systemes, ie. the JSF. Please move on...


tsig Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Did you read the 10 page response?
Did you?
Yep.

[Swing Dangler]

I'm willing to concede to your definition, but again, I think it's splitting hairs.

Still not worth arguing over, IMO.

Well at least someone has come to their senses. And I agree that it is splitting hairs and not worth arguing over...which makes me wonder why Rmackey didn't choose something more robust to offer a rebuttal to rather than this. Say like items regarding the collapse of the towers, etc.

[Good Lt]

Now Rmacky may have not worked on the 'weapons' on this weapon system, but the point remains true when Kevin Ryan states he worked on the strike aircraft weapon systemes, ie. the JSF. Please move on...And this does what to refute anything Mackey wrote demolishing DRG...? And it does what to prove that 9-11 was an inside job? And this does what to prop up the hilariously inept ad hominem letter Ryan wrote to his fake journal?

Nothing?

Please move on.

[Mr. Skinny]

Well at least someone has come to their senses. And I agree that it is splitting hairs and not worth arguing over...which makes me wonder why Rmackey didn't choose something more robust to offer a rebuttal to rather than this. Say like items regarding the collapse of the towers, etc.
Couldn't agree more.

[metamars]

Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".

[uk_dave]

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".

How are religious debates won?

9-11 'truth' isn't about science and it's not even about a coherent political ideology, it's about belief and faith.

'Truthers' say 9-11 was an inside job and have no need to back this claim up with evidence or facts because they have a belief system and faith in their beliefs.

We cannot change the hardcore 'truthers' anymore than we could change a devout christian, muslim etc.

We can, however, point out to the gallery just how absurd and baseless these 'truther' beliefs really are.

[T.A.M.]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

So I know from this point onward we will not have you refer to those who post here as NISTIANS or other such...because above all else I know we can count on you living by your own words.

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

I don't understand how people can keep on taking the time to clearly explain things to truthers.

I realy don't think they deserve the REPEATED effort. They don't deserve it based on their own behaviour.

Every discussion follows the same format:

1) Truther makes claim
2) Claim is refuted
3) Truther ignore refutation, pretends it never hapened
4) Truther makes some other claim
5) Other claim is refuted
6) Truther either goes back to claim 1) or instead some other claim, all the while ignoring all points made against their claim


It's like arguing with a 3 year old. They deserve every insult they get because of their own actions in these discussions.

And what truly makes it all so very, very funny to watch. The truthers invariably end the discussion the same way.
They claim victory and walk away patting themself on the back.

How do you do it? How do you get riduculed in so obvious a manor, over and over, and yet somehow delude yourself into thinking you won something? How do you just ignore every point of physics/engineering that makes you the fool, while giddily pointing to some irrelevancy and claiming victory?

But please don't stop. I look forward to the idiocy. It's better than any sitcom on tv right now.

We do it to put on display the foolishness, the paranoia, the ridiculousness of their theories and comments, so that people looking for answers or at least logic, can find it through the truther weeds.

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".

Why attack ONLY the strongest arguments (Can't think of any strong arguments from truthers off the top, but I'll assume they have a couple), when you can attack and debunk all of them?

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly. There is no rule here against calling people who aren't forum members liars or morons.

Kevin Ryan is demonstrably a liar and an intellectual coward. If he doesn't like being called that, then he should change his behavior. As for "moron," that word tends to be used very loosely. Ryan certainly says many things that are unsupported by facts, and his arguments usually hinge on misrepresentations of engineering studies and engineers' words.

The question is whether those misrepresentations are due to lack of comprehension or due to intent to deceive. I tend to believe the latter, since Ryan has shown his willingness to engage in blatant deception (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg).

To me, Ryan shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt that he's not smart enough to understand the multitude of things he gets wrong.

[Apollo20]

TAM, we both know that many JREFers are devout NISTIANS ...... and as UKDave points out, you can't change a devout NISTIAN can you?

But TAM, do you consider the term NISTIAN to be derogatory. I don't!

It's a convenient way to describe followers of a particular creed. Kinda like "Christian"!

Some of my best friends are NISTIANS!

However, it is quite clear that "Waterboy" is derogatory since it is intended solely as a personal insult to Mr. Ryan.

TAM, would you like to be called "BOY", when you are obviously not a boy?

[rwguinn]

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".

Unfortunately, the Ad Homs ARE the twoofers strongest arguments...

[Sporanox]

TAM, we both know that many JREFers are devout NISTIANS ...... and as UKDave points out, you can't change a devout NISTIAN can you?

But TAM, do you consider the term NISTIAN to be derogatory. I don't!

It's a convenient way to describe followers of a particular creed. Kinda like "Christian"!

Some of my best friends are NISTIANS!

However, it is quite clear that "Waterboy" is derogatory since it is intended solely as a personal insult to Mr. Ryan.

TAM, would you like to be called "BOY", when you are obviously not a boy?

Hmm, would you look at that! Splitting hairs over an issue totally irrelevant to the science! An issue not worth arguing over! Go Swing go! After the irrelevancy!

Anyway, the term "NISTIANS" may imply fanaticism, so it could be derogatory. But as others have pointed out, Ryan's not a member of these forums, so he's not under the protection clause.

-Sporanox

[Max Photon]

I'm sorry...how did everyone rule out inside job?

I'm still not clear.

[Hellbound]

Max:

Lack of evidence. Do try to keep up.

By the way, figured out that thermite delivery system yet?

[Billdave2]

I can clear it up for you real quickly. There is not one piece of solid evidence to support the inside job theory. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence that disprove it.

See, crystal clear.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, we both know that many JREFers are devout NISTIANS ...... and as UKDave points out, you can't change a devout NISTIAN can you?

But TAM, do you consider the term NISTIAN to be derogatory. I don't!

It's a convenient way to describe followers of a particular creed. Kinda like "Christian"!

Some of my best friends are NISTIANS!

However, it is quite clear that "Waterboy" is derogatory since it is intended solely as a personal insult to Mr. Ryan.

TAM, would you like to be called "BOY", when you are obviously not a boy?

Well I am glad to hear that your referring to some of us as NISTIANS is a term of endearment, as the tone and message that often with the posts containing the reference certainly didn't lead me to think as much.

I agree that the name is derogatory, and I suspect it is MEANT to be. I personally do not use it (or if I have, perhaps maybe once), but based on my readings of Ryan's, he at times may deserve it.

Think of all the name Cheney is called here, or Bush, or others who ARE NOT MEMBERS, but have made public statements on certain issues. If Kevin Ryan were a member here, people would not use the name, as he would then would be protected by the rules of the forum that protect all members from name calling and insults, etc, just as you are protected, and I.

And no, unless it is my parent (only mother alive), I do not like being called a "boy". I have been called much worse on other peoples blogs, and other forums.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Max:

Lack of evidence. Do try to keep up.

By the way, figured out that thermite delivery system yet?

apparently he has, it is the hardware that was already in place...

you explain it to him Max...lol

TAM;)

[Hellbound]

apparently he has, it is the hardware that was already in place...

you explain it to him Max...lol

TAM;)

So he's still going with that, despite the fact that it's impossible? You'd think he'd at least attempt to respond to valid criticism.

Ah well...that's what you get for expecting a duck to lay golden eggs. Only in fairy tales :)

[DavidJames]

I'm sorry...how did everyone rule out inside job?

I'm still not clear.The same way we ruled out Godzila job or FSM job or aliens from outer space job.

The fact that you're not clear suggests you need to learn about critical thinking and how to apply it to every day life. I think you could benefit in many ways.

[cmcaulif]

If anyone wants to actually discuss the letter, among many strange claims that KR makes is that when the gas temperature is 1000C the steel temps would be no greater than 250C

Bare steel, meaning un fireproofed steel, would indeed reach the same temperatures as the gas temperatures, this is shown in the Cardington Tests(pg 39, fig 21):

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/FullScaleFireTestBRE215741.pdf

But for the fireproofed elements it is much more complicated and for him to just pull the number 250 out just doesn't work. He is once again trying to use the the steel sample data as an upper bound for the steel temps reached, a blunder which I thought most truthers were past by now.

[Apollo20]

Cmcaulif:

The Cardington Tests are not a meaningful comparison to the WTC fires since they involved a fuel load of 44 kg/m^2. NIST states quite clearly that the WTC fires were fed by 20 kg/m^2 fuel loads. The time vs. temperature profiles in the Cardington Tests were nothing like the equivalent profiles reported by NIST for the workstation fire tests. Also the section factors of the structural members exposed to the WTC fires were generally quite different to the section factors of the steel exposed in the Cardington Tests.

Let's compare apples with apples please.

[Mince]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers..


You don't get to claim this anymore. It is off-limits to you and your ilk who have turned the issue into such a joke.

[cmcaulif]

Cmcaulif:

The Cardington Tests are not a meaningful comparison to the WTC fires since they involved a fuel load of 44 kg/m^2. NIST states quite clearly that the WTC fires were fed by 20 kg/m^2 fuel loads. The time vs. temperature profiles in the Cardington Tests were nothing like the equivalent profiles reported by NIST for the workstation fire tests. Also the section factors of the structural members exposed to the WTC fires were generally quite different to the section factors of the steel exposed in the Cardington Tests.

Let's compare apples with apples please.

It would seem the actual fuel load is somewhat controversial, but even accepting the NIST estimate, I doubt that the thermal inertia of something like a floor truss will really make a huge difference, even considering the discrepancy in fuel loadings from cardington to the NIST estimate. In fact a floor beam in cardington will likely have greater thermal inertia than in the case of a WTC floor truss. This will probably only have a marked effect on the columns, which were ultimately lesss important to the collapse than the trusses.

Anyhow, the point is that Kevin Ryan stating that the steel will not exceed 250C is not good enough, a much more detailed analysis is needed than that, such as a time temperature curve for the steel element, or a heat-flux vs time curve, if he does not accept what NIST has produced.

[LashL]

Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...

No. Pointing out that the man is a liar and that his pathetic "letter" demonstrates poor and superficial research skills is not an unwarranted smear. To the contrary, it is a justified comment.

As for "moron," that word tends to be used very loosely. Ryan certainly says many things that are unsupported by facts, and his arguments usually hinge on misrepresentations of engineering studies and engineers' words.

The question is whether those misrepresentations are due to lack of comprehension or due to intent to deceive. I tend to believe the latter, since Ryan has shown his willingness to engage in blatant deception (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg).

To me, Ryan shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt that he's not smart enough to understand the multitude of things he gets wrong.


Quite so. I did not use the word "moron" in the literal sense of the word, but in the colloquial sense of the word. He most certainly does not deserve the easy out that being a literal moron would give him.

[pomeroo]

I don't understand how people can keep on taking the time to clearly explain things to truthers.

I realy don't think they deserve the REPEATED effort. They don't deserve it based on their own behaviour.

Every discussion follows the same format:

1) Truther makes claim
2) Claim is refuted
3) Truther ignore refutation, pretends it never hapened
4) Truther makes some other claim
5) Other claim is refuted
6) Truther either goes back to claim 1) or instead some other claim, all the while ignoring all points made against their claim


It's like arguing with a 3 year old. They deserve every insult they get because of their own actions in these discussions.

And what truly makes it all so very, very funny to watch. The truthers invariably end the discussion the same way.
They claim victory and walk away patting themself on the back.

How do you do it? How do you get riduculed in so obvious a manor, over and over, and yet somehow delude yourself into thinking you won something? How do you just ignore every point of physics/engineering that makes you the fool, while giddily pointing to some irrelevancy and claiming victory?

But please don't stop. I look forward to the idiocy. It's better than any sitcom on tv right now.



Some people are made uncomfortable by my use of the term "conspiracy liar." I keep explaining that it is simply more precise and descriptive than any other.

[pomeroo]

I'm sorry...how did everyone rule out inside job?


Not everyone, Max. Serious researchers and people possessing critical thinking skills ruled out the possibility of an inside job. You see, they examined the MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that showed conclusively that the attacks were perpetrated by nineteen well-trained, highly motivated jihadists who hijacked four commercial airliners and flew three of them into buildings. The highlighted words explain why you were incapable of reaching such an ineluctable conclusion.



I'm still not clear.


You ain't kidding--for once.

[JamesB]

Wow, now Jones is promoting this dreck over at 911 Blogger. This guy is clueless.

http://911blogger.com/node/12829

[LashL]

Further disingenuity on Waterboy's part is revealed in the section of his "letter" dealing with his failed lawsuit against UL.

He is clearly annoyed that the court documents were posted here and that people commented on them. Yet, he is the guy who used his website to publicly seek donations from strangers to fund his ill-conceived lawsuit, and, frankly, he should have been making the documents available on his own website.

He did not do so, of course. I surmise that it is because the documents were so embarrassing to him. I can understand why he wouldn't want the lunacy of his filings and the myriad mistakes by his "legal team" to have the bright light of disclosure and exposure shone upon them.

Then, in his "letter", he cherry picks one line out of five lengthy threads (consisting of hundreds and hundreds of posts) chronicling his ill-conceived lawsuit as though that one line somehow defines and describes the hundreds of posts that were actually written. It certainly did not. Typical twoofer behaviour on his part, though.

Further, he outright lies when he writes in his "letter":
...it’s not about a final reward, it’s about discovery. Of course, anonymous government apologists are not likely to know much about that.In fact, it was discussed early on, and throughout, that one of Waterboy's goals with his ill-conceived, poorly drafted, error-ridden, fantasy-based lawsuit was to get to discovery. He never had much of a chance of getting there in light of the fact that his lawsuit was, well, ill-conceived, poorly drafted, error-ridden and fantasy-based, but his motives were never misunderstood by those of us here who were discussing it. So, again, Waterboy proves himself to be a liar and a poor researcher.

(As an aside, discovery wasn't his sole motive, of course. There was also the little matter of trying to score several hundred thousand dollars for himself, although that was just as unlikely as him ever making it to discovery since the documents drafted on his behalf never managed to address the necessary legal points, never managed to address the proper legal tests, and always managed to fall short in so many ways that it was almost embarrassing to read and watch.)

On the up side, Waterboy alludes to having his "legal team" (although 2 of the 3 lawyers he had on board last time around jumped ship when it came to signing off on his purported Second Amended Complaint, and the only remaining lawyer was Mick Harrison, who screwed up so often and so spectacularly that he was personally called upon to explain himself by the court) serve another complaint against UL.

I, for one, can hardly wait.

[LashL]

Wow, now Jones is promoting this dreck over at 911 Blogger. This guy is clueless.



He certainly is, and he has been for quite some time, sadly.

[PhantomWolf]

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.

Ahhh, but there is a double standard here, one I have questioned the Mods on. Basically you can say anything you like about someone, as long as they are not a member of the borad. Thus is would seem to be perfectly allowable to call Prez Shrubie a dumb idoit that couldn't locate his butt with both hands and a map, but repeating the same against a member here would get you deal with servely. Thus deliberately mispelling someone's nickname is against the rules, deliberately mispelling the name of or calling a non-member names is perfectly fine.

[T.A.M.]

if this is to be a double standard, than the world has accepted such.

I may call J Lo hot in front of my wife and friends, but I dare not say my wife's best friend is hot, or I shall feel her wrath.

In high school, you might get away with calling Dick Cheney "Hitler"like, but I think calling your math teacher such a name would not go as easy.

I know these examples are not the same, but the fact is that any community will try to keep civility rules, etiquette standards amongst those within the community. The same rules will not apply to those outside, as in this case free speech places higher.

TAM:)

[LashL]

Ahhh, but there is a double standard here, one I have questioned the Mods on. Basically you can say anything you like about someone, as long as they are not a member of the borad. Thus is would seem to be perfectly allowable to call Prez Shrubie a dumb idoit that couldn't locate his butt with both hands and a map, but repeating the same against a member here would get you deal with servely. Thus deliberately mispelling someone's nickname is against the rules, deliberately mispelling the name of or calling a non-member names is perfectly fine.

While it may, arguably, be construed as a matter of semantics, I don't think that is a "double standard" at all, but rather a "different standard for a rational and defensible reason".

In my view, a "double standard" would be treating members of one persuasion (whether political, gender, viewpoint, etc.) differently than members of another persuasion.

A "different standard", however, involves treating all members equally regardless of persuasion (whether political, gender, viewpoint, or other) but not applying the same rules to non-members. This makes sense since non-members are similarly not bound by the rules imposed here upon members.

[stilicho]

JamesB:

For such a serious issue as the cause of the collapse of the twin towers - a topic we claim to debate on this forum with technical precision - don't you think calling Mr. Ryan "Waterboy" is very childish and inappropriate? What point are you trying to make? Do you really think it strengthens your argument? Well let me tell you, it does not!

If you have taken the trouble to post about Mr. Ryan's writings, you obviously think he is worthy of some consideration and discussion, so please use his correct name in future. I am making this request because I was recently criticized by a moderator for the crime of miss-spelling someone's pseudonym - and I am sure the moderators wouldn't like the forum to have a double standard on this issue.
I was on a different forum when Mr Ryan first came out with his claims. His name was still on UL's web site at the time. I was one among many that I know that emailed UL to complain that Mr Ryan was pretending to be someone that he was not.

His termination came very shortly afterwards and almost certainly due in part to his public claims to Dr Gayle which contained false information about himself and his work at UL.

It's probably not nice to call him "Waterboy" but he certainly hasn't done himself any favours by faking claims in publicly available documents. He reminds me of Fred Leuchter.

[Dave Rogers]

It isn't a weapons system itself? Hmmm I wonder why the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program describes the JSF as a weapons system?

I wonder why you think "The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems (http://www.jsf.mil/) for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies" means "The F-35 Lightning II is a weapon system". If it's the focal point for defining weapons systems, then it isn't actually a weapons system itself, it's the thing the weapons systems are designed to be compatible with. As usual, a truther quote that disproves the point the truther's trying to make.

Kevin Ryan can't even get his ad hominem fallacies right.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

The question is whether those misrepresentations are due to lack of comprehension or due to intent to deceive. I tend to believe the latter, since Ryan has shown his willingness to engage in blatant deception (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg)

Good gravy, I debunked your little 'deception' deal along time ago.

Gravy,or anyone since he has me on ignore, compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.

Speaking of misrepresentation and dishonesty, that is exactly what you are doing with this link to ryanfraud1.jpg. and apparently reflects the exact standards you accuse truthers of using. :busted

Be a good little debunker now and update your research to reflect the reality of the slide you 'claim' is deceptive and try to lie about something else.

[Minadin]

Good gravy, I debunked your little 'deception' deal along time ago.

Gravy,or anyone since he has me on ignore, compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.

Despite the blatant misrepresentation made in that quote by Mr. Ryan's choice to leave out certain phrases, and despite what he was saying verbally when he used the slide mentioned above, I could almost go with you here, except for one thing.

How does a quote from a 2002 documentary change in 2006?

The documentary is still in 2002. It doesn't change. If he had re-sourced his quote to say that it reflected some 2006 memo, that would be one thing. But he's still using the PBS documentary - same source - yet changes the quote. That's not right.


By the by, just to clear something up from Page 1, Swing - Do you have a better understanding of what makes something Ad Hom yet? Let me know if there's anything I can still clear up if you're foggy.

[Swing Dangler]

Despite the blatant misrepresentation made in that quote by Mr. Ryan's choice to leave out certain phrases, and despite what he was saying verbally when he used the slide mentioned above, I could almost go with you here, except for one thing.

How does a quote from a 2002 documentary change in 2006?

The documentary is still in 2002. It doesn't change. If he had re-sourced his quote to say that it reflected some 2006 memo, that would be one thing. But he's still using the PBS documentary - same source - yet changes the quote. That's not right.


By the by, just to clear something up from Page 1, Swing - Do you have a better understanding of what makes something Ad Hom yet? Let me know if there's anything I can still clear up if you're foggy.

Hmm Kevin Ryan guilty of not properly citing his quote. Not right as in right in wrong? Hardly. An error in a citied source? Sure. Does a citation error equate to a lie, deceit, and misrepresentation describing motivation? Of course not but only in the debunker realm.

Now perhaps you should chastise gravy for not updating his research. Say like, "In this slide, Kevin Ryan corrects the record based upon a press release by Silverstein offices. However, because he did not properly cite the update on the slide, he is a lying deceitful man."

Back to your Ad Hom issue, are you referring to:
1. ad hominem circumstantial or
2. ad hominem abusive or
3. argumentum ad personam or
4. ad hominem tu quoque or

And when you decide, then you can determine if Kevin Ryan was justified in suggesting a possible motive for Mackey's debunking efforts. To me motivation for being a truther or a debunker is pretty paramount to one's position. I've read comments to new members often enough asking what their motivation for posting is. It was done to me on my first post at JREF so IMHO it isn't a fallacy at all.

If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.

[Belz...]

*silently points to her screen name* Need I say more?

In actuality, you guys are in an unusual situation as regards my username; this is the only forum where I've used my actual name (albeit only my first name) as my username, largely because I was kind of bored of the other one I tend to use and couldn't think up a better one on the spur of the moment. C'est la vie. :D

But it looks so good on you !

[Crungy]

Waterboy commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a "gubmit work" that "insert any leading engineering / scientific professional qualified to comment on said issue" is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.

Thanks for outlining Waterboy's debating tactics for us Swing. :p

[Minadin]

Back to your Ad Hom issue, are you referring to:
1. ad hominem circumstantial or
2. ad hominem abusive or
3. argumentum ad personam or
4. ad hominem tu quoque or

And when you decide, then you can determine if Kevin Ryan was justified in suggesting a possible motive for Mackey's debunking efforts. To me motivation for being a truther or a debunker is pretty paramount to one's position. I've read comments to new members often enough asking what their motivation for posting is. It was done to me on my first post at JREF so IMHO it isn't a fallacy at all.

If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.

I'm referring to your statement in this thread that you don't understand how something can be ad hom if it's factually accurate. Ad Hom has nothing to do with the accuracy of a statement. It has to do with addressing the arguer personally rather than the argument itself or its specific points.

Kevin Ryan's statement in his letter is that there's no need to refute Ryan Mackey's arguments, because he works on projects for the government. That's a textbook Ad Hom, as you're shifting the focus of your approach to the person rather than his position:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

This is exactly what Kevin Ryan is saying:

R.Mackey makes claim(s)
He works for the government and we're anti-government
Therefore his claims are false

Furthermore, it's impossible to only talk about one type of Ad Hominem here, as I'd say that he's engaging in several forms.

Ad Hom Circumstantial certainly in the example above, for pointing out personal information that's irrelevant to any of the points made in the argument. He's claiming R.Mackey has a bias rather than address the points to show how they are biased.

Later, he seems to engage in a Guilt by Association (Type of Ad Hom) when he links R. Mackey to the JREF Forum Conspiracy Theories Sub-forum (which he shortens to 'Randi's Forum') and things he finds objectionable about other posters here that have nothing to do with Mr. Mackey whatsoever, such as their anonymity. Why mention that?

[Swing Dangler]

I'm referring to your statement in this thread that you don't understand how something can be ad hom if it's factually accurate. Ad Hom has nothing to do with the accuracy of a statement. It has to do with addressing the arguer personally rather than the argument itself or its specific points.

Kevin Ryan's statement in his letter is that there's no need to refute Ryan Mackey's arguments, because he works on projects for the government. That's a textbook Ad Hom, as you're shifting the focus of your approach to the person rather than his position:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

This is exactly what Kevin Ryan is saying:

R.Mackey makes claim(s)
He works for the government and we're anti-government
Therefore his claims are false

Furthermore, it's impossible to only talk about one type of Ad Hominem here, as I'd say that he's engaging in several forms.

Ad Hom Circumstantial certainly in the example above, for pointing out personal information that's irrelevant to any of the points made in the argument. He's claiming R.Mackey has a bias rather than address the points to show how they are biased.

Later, he seems to engage in a Guilt by Association (Type of Ad Hom) when he links R. Mackey to the JREF Forum Conspiracy Theories Sub-forum (which he shortens to 'Randi's Forum') and things he finds objectionable about other posters here that have nothing to do with Mr. Mackey whatsoever, such as their anonymity. Why mention that?


Hey Minadin, did Kevin Ryan address points made in Mackey's paper? Yes or no?
Yes! Not all, of course, but he did address some of them.

So the ad hom point is well pointless. Especially considering you completely avoided RMackey's ad hom issues. But I suppose that is the hypocrisy some debunkers display openly.

If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents.
Do you agree or disagree with this? I noticed you avoided responding to this part of my post.

And for the sake of your time, you don't need to outline logic for me. I'm quite versed in it myself.

Why mention anonymity? I have no idea but watch this spin unravel...;)
Kevin at least respects Ryan for publishing his personal information within the context of the argument. I suppose he is justified in responding to a portion of Mackey's paper because of his experience unlike anonymous posters who claim lots of degrees and titles but with offer no way to verify such credentials.

What is your 'debunker' spin on that point?

[Minadin]

Hey Minadin, did Kevin Ryan address points made in Mackey's paper? Yes or no?
Yes! Not all, of course, but he did address some of them.

So the ad hom point is well pointless. Especially considering you completely avoided RMackey's ad hom issues. But I suppose that is the hypocrisy some debunkers display openly.

Do you agree or disagree with this? I noticed you avoided responding to this part of my post.

And for the sake of your time, you don't need to outline logic for me. I'm quite versed in it myself.

Why mention anonymity? I have no idea but watch this spin unravel...;)
Kevin at least respects Ryan for publishing his personal information within the context of the argument. I suppose he is justified in responding to a portion of Mackey's paper because of his experience unlike anonymous posters who claim lots of degrees and titles but with offer no way to verify such credentials.

What is your 'debunker' spin on that point?

If you have such a great grasp of logic, why is all of your reasoning so fallacious?

To suggest that Kevin Ryan is justified in his use of Ad Hom fallacy because you (and/or he) believe that Ryan Mackey used Ad Hominem first, is in itself Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

In case you have not noticed, I've refrained from mentioning R.Mackey's paper at all: this discussion was about whether or not Kevin Ryan was using Ad Hominem in his letter to JoNES, which, in my opinion, it's fairly clear that he was. I don't really see how it's hypocrisy not to engage in your tu quoque fallacy.

That said, I believe Mr. Mackey's reference to Kevin Ryan in his paper was more to the effect of a reference to others who have found his claims lacking, as support, rather than saying he was wrong because he lost his court case and using that as his argument.

With regard to the choice of many people to remain anonymous, of which I am one, I would have to say that it's an individual's choice to do so - and one that you've chosen as well. I'm certainly not seeking any attention for my 'debunking' efforts, and if I were, this would not be the place to do it, as I'm far outgunned by so many of the folks here in the amount of effort, knowledge, and expertise they bring for their respective fields.

If you seriously doubt my credentials listed per the 9/11 expertise thread, I'm not sure what I could to satisfy your doubt. I suppose I could scan my degree or my business card, but I would want to remove any personal information, and as such it probably would mean very little to you.

Back to work! Have a nice day everyone.

[boloboffin]

compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.

In what universe? Silverstein's statement (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html) is completely consistent with the PBS quote.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

If the statement said, "Later in the day, the Fire Commander and Silverstein decided to order the firefighters out of the building," you might have a point. But it does not, you don't, and Kevin Ryan remains a liar.

[Crungy]

And for the sake of your time, you don't need to outline logic for me. I'm quite versed in it myself.


Sorry, but there is no evidence to back up this claim.

[LashL]

Bumpedy bump.

ETA: As of December 7, 2007, Kevin Ryan (aka Waterboy, aka Aquaman) has not updated or edited his "please donate to fund my litigation" site to advise donors that his lawsuit was dismissed by the court.

An honourable person would have done so.

[Architect]

Maybe he's still trying to payt off the fee notes already accrued?

[R.Mackey]

Mr. Ryan is wrong. It's subtle, but there is no question about this.

If you read what the brief bio in my whitepaper actually says, it states the following: "He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation."

As it happens, I have not done any work on the vehicle itself. My work was technology development during the proposal phase, but ultimately that technology is not going into the JSF for various reasons having to do with contracts, well beyond my control. The actual systems I worked on during this phase -- before any JSF existed -- were rocket and jet engines, hydraulic systems, transmissions, hydraulic and electromechanical valves, power systems, structural monitoring sensors, and various models. All cobbled from various legacy aircraft and testbeds. None of it approaching a weapons system.

Furthermore, my employer -- my real one, since I am not a government employee -- has a policy standing ever since the end of WWII that its employees will not work on weapons systems. My contracting officers certify that my work is not work on a weapons system. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, take it up with them.

The line is admittedly blurry, as it is quite possible for my technologies to be applied to weapons systems by others, just as it is possible for them to be applied to civil aviation, automobiles, or toasters. There are few technologies that have no possible military application. This is simply the nature of research. However, I am not nor have ever been performing this integration myself.

Here's another example: One of my experiments used an F/A-18 Hornet as a carrier vehicle. The F/A-18 is a fighter aircraft, however, this particular aircraft is owned and operated by NASA Dryden, and flown by civilian pilots. It has never carried ordnance of any kind. Is it a "weapons system?" The answer is no, no more than the fact I could bolt an MA-2 machine gun to my car makes it a "weapons system." But, naturally, there will be those who argue otherwise, particularly those desperate to fling some kind of dirt at me.

Fling away, if you have no interest in the actual truth.

[Architect]

Fling away, if you have no interest in the actual truth.

That pretty much sums up 95% of the "Truth" Movement for me, as it happens.

[uk_dave]

Furthermore, my employer -- my real one, since I am not a government employee -- has a policy standing ever since the end of WWII that its employees will not work on weapons systems. My contracting officers certify that my work is not work on a weapons system. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, take it up with them.



Irony being that 'The Swing' could have found out about this policy and then crowed "But Mr Mackey's supposed employers don't allow work on weapons systems so he's a liar, liar pants on fire !!111eleventy!!"

It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.

[R.Mackey]

Irony being that 'The Swing' could have found out about this policy and then crowed "But Mr Mackey's supposed employers don't allow work on weapons systems so he's a liar, liar pants on fire !!111eleventy!!"

It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.

Pre-emptively, one might also accuse me of "working on weapon systems" on the basis that I helped a friend sight in a scope on a rifle recently...

This is all academic. I'm still waiting for anyone to find errors in my whitepaper. We already know that the guiding lights of the Truth Movement don't like me, that's hardly secret. The problem is that, on the rare occassions when Mr. Ryan (or any of the others) actually attempts to work with facts, they get embarrassed.

Even more than I'd thought possible, in fact -- I had assumed that I'd made at least some errors. Nobody is infallible. The best I can do is to learn from others and fix it, and I will. But the silence from the Truth Movement on factual matters is astonishing.

[Architect]

It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.

:D

I'm only here because it's more entertaining that Strictly Dancing, you know......

[Architect]

But the silence from the Truth Movement on factual matters is astonishing.

It does seem that they have a problem differentiating betwixt "subjective" and "objective".

Or "fact" and "fantasy" for that matter....

[Hokulele]

...This is all academic. I'm still waiting for anyone to find errors in my whitepaper...


You mean, other than rwguinn. ;)

[R.Mackey]

You mean, other than rwguinn. ;)


Well, strictly speaking, I've received and implemented a number of minor corrections. None of them from the Truth Movement, however, and nothing from Mr. Ryan is even correct -- his complaints actually get him deeper into "fraud" territory.

[Tony Szamboti]

Mr. Ryan is wrong. It's subtle, but there is no question about this.

If you read what the brief bio in my whitepaper actually says, it states the following: "He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation."

As it happens, I have not done any work on the vehicle itself. My work was technology development during the proposal phase, but ultimately that technology is not going into the JSF for various reasons having to do with contracts, well beyond my control. The actual systems I worked on during this phase -- before any JSF existed -- were rocket and jet engines, hydraulic systems, transmissions, hydraulic and electromechanical valves, power systems, structural monitoring sensors, and various models. All cobbled from various legacy aircraft and testbeds. None of it approaching a weapons system.

Furthermore, my employer -- my real one, since I am not a government employee -- has a policy standing ever since the end of WWII that its employees will not work on weapons systems. My contracting officers certify that my work is not work on a weapons system. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, take it up with them.

The line is admittedly blurry, as it is quite possible for my technologies to be applied to weapons systems by others, just as it is possible for them to be applied to civil aviation, automobiles, or toasters. There are few technologies that have no possible military application. This is simply the nature of research. However, I am not nor have ever been performing this integration myself.

Here's another example: One of my experiments used an F/A-18 Hornet as a carrier vehicle. The F/A-18 is a fighter aircraft, however, this particular aircraft is owned and operated by NASA Dryden, and flown by civilian pilots. It has never carried ordnance of any kind. Is it a "weapons system?" The answer is no, no more than the fact I could bolt an MA-2 machine gun to my car makes it a "weapons system." But, naturally, there will be those who argue otherwise, particularly those desperate to fling some kind of dirt at me.

Fling away, if you have no interest in the actual truth.

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

[peteweaver]

Swing, instead of talking gibberish and supporting an attack on a member of this board, by a sacked wannabe metallurgist, perhaps you'd like to tell everyone how the WTC's steel could have withstood the combined damage of full speed plane crashes, and fires.

[Architect]

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.


Prove it.

[DGM]

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.
Tony:
I agree that Ryan's mention of this was pointless. What do you think were the highlights of Ryan's letter (if any)?

[Tony Szamboti]

Prove it.

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
I agree that Ryan's mention of this was pointless. What do you think were the highlights of Ryan's letter (if any)?

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.

[DGM]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.
Fair enough.

I won't press you for details considering it was not your work.

Thanks

[twinstead]

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.
Then what do you have to say to people who work in the same industry who say they don't know ANY? Do you just know a lot of conspiracy theorists?

[Dave Rogers]

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

It's a shame there isn't some system by which such criticisms could be brought to an author's attention - some sort of review by the author's peers, for example.

Dave

[Architect]

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.

Firstly Tony, I think I own you an apology for never getting around to that technical debate.

However moving along, what you're asking me to do is take your word for it that (a) you have spoken to many people in your industry who have concerns about the official explanation of 911, (b) that there are not a correspondingly large proportion of respondents who support that account, and (c) this is in itself representative of the wider defence community.

Now when I make similar comments about the construction industry view, which is of course pretty much in support of the conventional collapse explanation, most Truthers usually claim that such an account is to be set at nought.

So which is it?

[pomeroo]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.



Again, I ask you to tell us what you know about demolition that people who work in the industry do not. Why are demolition specialists unanimous in their belief that the 9/11 fantasy movement's myths about explosives in the Towers are pure moonshine?

[beachnut]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.
Must be your demonstrated lack of knowledge on 9/11, leading to this conclusion of woo. Kevin's paper is junk and pure ignorance; reminds me of most of the posted 9/11 truth junk at the journal of woo.

[Gravy]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall...Specifically what does Ryan get right? You're a peer reviewer for JONES, so you should have no problem answering this question.

[LashL]

Maybe he's still trying to payt off the fee notes already accrued?

Quite likely, yes. Mick Harrison may have been providing his services to Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) for free but the other two lawyers - the two who refused to sign off on Waterboy's (Kevin Ryan's) second amended complaint - almost certainly were not.

Still, since Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) has long been panhandling from his fellow tinhatters in order to fund his ill-fated and nonsensical litigation, he most certainly should have kept his fellow tinhatters abreast of the progress of his ill-advised and spectacularly unsuccessful endeavours along the way.

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) should have been posting the documents himself every step of the way, and should have been offering content and context, but he did not. All he has done is run, hide, whine, snivel, and then criticize others for posting the evidence of his failures.

Kevin Ryan is an idiot.

On the up side, perhaps at least a few "truthers" will learn from the fiasco and realize that Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) and the entire "truth" movement is full of crap.

*Yes, I repeated the name of Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) as often as possible for purposes of Google searches. ;)

[~enigma~]

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) Waterboy is Adam Sandler. Kevin Ryan is just some idiot who belongs in a sewage plant. Call him Aquaman but please wear a noseplug :)

[beachnut]

So defense spending does not benefit people who work for the M/I complex? I'm not why you labeled this as Ad Hom if it is true. Just a simple fact is all.
6 years, and this is the best you will ever do... sad

peaked out ...

finished

done

complete

failure

You will not forget me, you will not let me. Total failure, comes early, you can start over, but time will cast a spell on you, get far from 9/11 so you can recover and be free ... if you run away now you can escape and recover, change your name and express knowledge and judgments from this day forward and forever more ... amen

last chance

[slyjoe]

Quite likely, yes. Mick Harrison may have been providing his services to Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) for free but the other two lawyers - the two who refused to sign off on Waterboy's (Kevin Ryan's) second amended complaint - almost certainly were not.

Still, since Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) has long been panhandling from his fellow tinhatters in order to fund his ill-fated and nonsensical litigation, he most certainly should have kept his fellow tinhatters abreast of the progress of his ill-advised and spectacularly unsuccessful endeavours along the way.

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) should have been posting the documents himself every step of the way, and should have been offering content and context, but he did not. All he has done is run, hide, whine, snivel, and then criticize others for posting the evidence of his failures.

(Waterboy) Kevin Ryan is an idiot.

On the up side, perhaps at least a few "truthers" will learn from the fiasco and realize that Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) and the entire "truth" movement is full of crap.

*Yes, I repeated the name of Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) as often as possible for purposes of Google searches. ;)


Fixed that one for you LashL :)

[beachnut]

Kevin Ryan is an idiot. ;)
Why is the truth not available for 9/11 truth?