Ryan Squeaks Out Another "Challenge"

[pomeroo]

Kevin Ryan slowed down his flight from Mark Roberts long enough to issue, on 911blogger, another bogus challenge. He must be reasonably sure that NIST will not violate its policy of refusing to debate uninformed loons.


The following message was sent to Michael Newman, spokesperson for NIST’s WTC investigation, on June 19th.
Dear Mr. Newman,
I've been asked to identify a defender of the official story of 9/11/01, for a possible debate or discussion on the Thom Hartmann radio show.
Would anyone from NIST be interested in joining me for this debate? If so, please respond to me, and David Pool (copied), the producer of Thom's show.
Thanks.
Kevin Ryan
To date there has been no response to this invitation, from Mr. Newman or anyone else at NIST. Having waited nearly three years to hear back from NIST’s Frank Gayle, I can say that this is no surprise.
But here is a new paper covering one of the issues that might have been discussed in such a debate, that is, if NIST scientists actually did have the integrity to stand up for their work.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD

[Unfit4Command]

Perhaps this would be a good time for Mark to extend another challenge. Seems like a good choice for someone to defend the official story.

[T.A.M.]

Ryan will never, NEVER, debate a serious debunker. Just like DRG will not. I can guarantee you these guys know that the key to their success is finding some poor scientist who is naive to their lines of crap, get them on a show, razzle dazzle them with their "million inconsistencies", until the scientist, having gotten in over his head in truth shaite, throws up his hands in dispair. They can then claim a victory against a real scientist.

They will not, WILL NOT, be able to do that against the likes of Mark, and that is why NONE OF THEM will debate him (watching LTW and Fetzer crack the way they did doesn't help encourage them either...lol).

TAM

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Unfit4Command

Perhaps this would be a good time for Mark to extend another challenge. Seems like a good choice for someone to defend the official story.

Happy Birthday, Unfit4Command!

[Gravy]

I replied to Ryan's blog post (replies are moderated, so it may not show up right away).

Dear Mr. Ryan,

You have again courageously challenged people to a debate who you know have a policy of not debating. I have no such policy. Thom Hartmann's producer contacted me last week and I said I'd gladly participate in a debate with a prominent 9/11 conspiracist.

I take it we're on then? I await your word.

Mark Roberts

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Gravy

I replied to Ryan's blog post (replies are moderated, so it may not show up right away).

Dear Mr. Ryan,

You have again courageously challenged people to a debate who you know have a policy of not debating. I have no such policy. Thom Hartmann's producer contacted me last week and I said I'd gladly participate in a debate with a prominent 9/11 conspiracist.

I take it we're on then? I await your word.

Mark Roberts

Excellent! It will be interesting to see how the waterboy tries to avoid this one... and even better if he mans up and doesn't try slinking away again





Psst, Unfit4Command, I said happy birthday on another thread, complete with animated smilies and such, but just in case you missed it, happy birthday again!

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Gravy

I replied to Ryan's blog post (replies are moderated, so it may not show up right away).

Dear Mr. Ryan,

You have again courageously challenged people to a debate who you know have a policy of not debating. I have no such policy. Thom Hartmann's producer contacted me last week and I said I'd gladly participate in a debate with a prominent 9/11 conspiracist.

I take it we're on then? I await your word.

Mark Roberts

And the word from the Ryan camp is...

BEEP-BEEP! Z-O-O-O-O-M !!!!!!

[Unfit4Command]

Thanks for the birthday wishes all!

Back to the topic at hand:
I wish Kevin Ryan would debate Mark...why wouldn't he? If he already sent out an invite to other people, that means he's willing to debate. It wouldn't make sense if he declines this invite again. We may need to throw more in, like possibly paying for his trip.

We'll see.

[Architect]

They're all scared of real debate. All those facts get in the way of their fantasies....

...incidentally, as the last 4 weeks have disappeared in a flurry of post-recovery overwork and a fortnight in France (a la plage....!) how is Kevin aka the tumshie getting on with his court case? Been kicked into touch yet?

[Tony Szamboti]

deleted due to redundant posting error.

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Ryan will never, NEVER, debate a serious debunker. Just like DRG will not. I can guarantee you these guys know that the key to their success is finding some poor scientist who is naive to their lines of crap, get them on a show, razzle dazzle them with their "million inconsistencies", until the scientist, having gotten in over his head in truth shaite, throws up his hands in dispair. They can then claim a victory against a real scientist.

They will not, WILL NOT, be able to do that against the likes of Mark, and that is why NONE OF THEM will debate him (watching LTW and Fetzer crack the way they did doesn't help encourage them either...lol).

TAM

Mark Roberts accepted Kevin Ryan's challenge to a debate on Thom Hartmann's radio show and Ryan has acknowledged and accepted Robert's offer. Their respective comments on it are at

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

[NYCEMT86]

Gravy,

If you get bored with Kevin Ryan and his fallacies, this response would be proper in every way.

Mr. Ryan, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

Mark Roberts accepted Kevin Ryan's challenge to a debate on Thom Hartmann's radio show and Ryan has acknowledged and accepted Robert's offer. Their respective comments on it are at

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

Ryan's acceptance is conditioned upon Mark's answering a question about jet fuel. Whether Ryan actually agrees to debate remains to be seen.

[Mr.Herbert]

Waterboy Ryan did NOT accept the challange.....yet....He asked Mark to answer one question. Facts that Mark has posted on his Google pages and in other areas:

"Please tell me how much jet fuel was left remaining to feed the fires on the floors of impact and failure in either of the WTC towers. Since you are supporting the official conspiracy theory, I assume you will refer to the NIST WTC report, which would be the main focus of our debate.
If you can answer this one simple question, I will again accept your challenge."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

"IF" "IF" "IF" .. Looks like Captain Water Woo is looking for some sort of an out.

I hope this happens!!!

[uk_dave]

Quote:

As you know, I accepted your "antyime, anyplace" challenge last time as well, only to find that the National 911 Debate did not fit within those terms.

Apparently the Thom Hartmann show has found only one person in America who will still support the official conspiracy theory with regard to the events at the World Trade Center. That one person is you. Despite not having any information about your background, I'm willing to accept your challenge again, given one small test of your abilities.

Please tell me how much jet fuel was left remaining to feed the fires on the floors of impact and failure in either of the WTC towers. Since you are supporting the official conspiracy theory, I assume you will refer to the NIST WTC report, which would be the main focus of our debate.

If you can answer this one simple question, I will again accept your challenge.

Good luck.

What the hell is all that about? Is he trying to wriggle out? Give the wrong answer (the wrong answer in his world anyway) and he doesn't have to debate?

Pathetic.

ETA: I wouldn't bother to provide an answer to his test. Just proceed with the debate.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

Mark Roberts accepted Kevin Ryan's challenge to a debate on Thom Hartmann's radio show and Ryan has acknowledged and accepted Robert's offer. Their respective comments on it are at

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

We will see if it happens. I hope it does, so he can put water boy out of his misery.

TAM

[Tony Szamboti]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert

Waterboy Ryan did NOT accept the challange.....yet....He asked Mark to answer one question. Facts that Mark has posted on his Google pages and in other areas:

"Please tell me how much jet fuel was left remaining to feed the fires on the floors of impact and failure in either of the WTC towers. Since you are supporting the official conspiracy theory, I assume you will refer to the NIST WTC report, which would be the main focus of our debate.
If you can answer this one simple question, I will again accept your challenge."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

"IF" "IF" "IF" .. Looks like Captain Water Woo is looking for some sort of an out.

I hope this happens!!!

Why wouldn't Mark be able to answer that question? NIST speculates as to how much fuel probably entered the towers.

I hope they debate. Why wouldn't you want an open debate on the issue? We have two knowledgeable parties willing to debate in public and it should happen.

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

Why wouldn't Mark be able to answer that question? NIST speculates as to how much fuel probably entered the towers.

It doesn't trouble you that Ryan immediately places a proviso on his acceptance of the debate?

Of course, he could just be playing to the stalls and pretending that he doesn't know who Mark Roberts is and is making sure his opponent is 'worthy' of debate. But that is just pathetic as Ryan knows perfectly well who Mark Roberts is.

So, why the proviso? Any thoughts?

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

So, why the proviso? Any thoughts?

well, why not? Mr Roberts will only do his reputation good, by answering, then debating. that will be 2-0 in most people´s books (assuming he wins the debate)

[uk_dave]

I want to know why this proviso isn't questioned by the 'truthers'.

If Mark Roberts gives a response (which I kinda hope he doesn't) what's the betting that Ryan immediately disagrees with the answer and declines the debate?

And another proviso, should the debate proceed, will no doubt be an injunction on any mention of Ryan's misrepresentation of his employment at UL, on account of his on going legal action.

[BillyRayValentine]

Originally Posted by realcddeal

...and Ryan has acknowledged and accepted Robert's offer...

Wrong. He has lamely tried to give the appearance of "accepting", whilst preparing to eject!, eject!, eject!

Quote:

"I'm willing to accept your challenge again, given one small test of your abilities...If you can answer this one simple question, I will again accept your challenge."

Keep your eye on the sky. His parachute will soon be coming into view...

[BillyRayValentine]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

If Mark Roberts gives a response (which I kinda hope he doesn't) what's the betting that Ryan immediately disagrees with the answer and declines the debate?

His precondition makes not a lick of sense, on any level. As for your bet, I'd wager a kidney...

[T.A.M.]

I am sorry Liszt, but do you honestly think that the agreement to debate should be qualified by one of the debators answering a trivia question for the other...that is ridiculous and for you to defend such makes me wonder about your position on things. I thought, regardless of your stance on the 9/11 issues, that you were about honesty, fair play.

CLEARLY Ryan is looking for an out.

I will be AMAZED if Roberts vs Ryan occurs.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

I see all the hallmarks of pulling a DRG argument. DRG made the criteria so difficult when asked by Ron Weick, that even an interview with him seemed doomed. Then, when Ron did manage to fulfill DRgs list of needs, DRg suddenly pulled a Willie Rodriguez excuse of being "insulted" by Ron posting the interview details here on JREF and backed out.

Like I said, I will be AMAZED if Ryan debates Roberts, as I think he is afraid to do so.

TAM

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I am sorry Liszt, but do you honestly think that the agreement to debate should be qualified by one of the debators answering a trivia question for the other...that is ridiculous and for you to defend such makes me wonder about your position on things.

Eh, it's not that different from the Presidential debates.

Moderator: I'd like to ask a question about health care, but candidates can only answer if they can tell me who won the Heisman Trophy in 1993.

[Par]

Originally Posted by Liszt

well, why not? Mr Roberts will only do his reputation good, by answering, then debating. that will be 2-0 in most people´s books (assuming he wins the debate)

Because, whatever happens Ryan will claim that Roberts couldn’t answer or dishonestly avoided the question and put that forward as the supposedly legitimate reason he refused to debate him.

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I am sorry Liszt, but do you honestly think that the agreement to debate should be qualified by one of the debators answering a trivia question for the other...that is ridiculous and for you to defend such makes me wonder about your position on things. I thought, regardless of your stance on the 9/11 issues, that you were about honesty, fair play.

CLEARLY Ryan is looking for an out.

I will be AMAZED if Roberts vs Ryan occurs.

TAM

OK, retracted - I was just keen to see another debate.

[T.A.M.]

Thank you sir...

TAM

[Gravy]

I replied to Ryan:

You are incorrect, Mr. Ryan.

First, you flatly rejected my prior challenge, suggested that I write about your work, and said that the Scholars would get around to dealing with me in the future.

The future is now!

Also, several debunkers, including Pat from Screw Loose Change, accepted Hartmann's challenge.

I wasn't aware that you had the authority to set the terms of discussion on Hartmann's show. However, since I've previously said that I would debate you and allow you to choose the time, location, moderators, and debate subjects, of course I have no problem constraining the discussion to the subjects you're comfortable with.

I'll be glad to discuss fuel distribution in the towers on air. I'll let the producer know you've accepted.

Mark

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'd just like to point out that the only condition Water Boy attaches to the question is that it be answered. He says nothing about that answer needing to be correct.

[Calcas]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

I'd just like to point out that the only condition Water Boy attaches to the question is that it be answered. He says nothing about that answer needing to be correct.

10-1 he doesn't accept because "the question wasn't answered."

Even if you Gravy does provide him with an answer, he will respond along the lines of "that's not an answer."

[CHF]

Gee wiz, water boy refuses to simply say "yes Mark, we're on." First Mark has to give a magic password about fuel.

Are there even any truthers who are fooled by Kyan's cowardice?

[Mr.Herbert]

I agree with the odds. I doubt Ryan has ANY intention of a serious debate with Mark. IMO this isn't going to happen.

[CHF]

If they can't even handle a NYC tour guide then what hope do they have of successfully presenting their case before a "new investigation?"

[T.A.M.]

Kevin Ryan is a wannabe. He has jumped onto the 9/11 bandwagon because of his fiasco with his workplace. I have seen no paper from him that produces anything more than the good old, boring and well beaten, truther cannards/staples. I think he has not the educational background to say anything more than the regurgitation of the DRg et al diatribe...fair enough, but they all seem to hail him as more than what he is, which is simply another truthbot.

I am not even sure he is worth Mark's time, but it sure would be fun watching.

TAM

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Gravy

I replied to Ryan:

You are incorrect, Mr. Ryan.

First, you flatly rejected my prior challenge, suggested that I write about your work, and said that the Scholars would get around to dealing with me in the future.

The future is now!

Also, several debunkers, including Pat from Screw Loose Change, accepted Hartmann's challenge.

I wasn't aware that you had the authority to set the terms of discussion on Hartmann's show. However, since I've previously said that I would debate you and allow you to choose the time, location, moderators, and debate subjects, of course I have no problem constraining the discussion to the subjects you're comfortable with.

I'll be glad to discuss fuel distribution in the towers on air. I'll let the producer know you've accepted.

Mark

Mark has effectively done what I was about to recommend: don't answer now, but say that you are willing to discuss the topic in the debate.

BTW, shouldn't the answer to the question be more or less answered from the Purdue simulations? In that case, it's not really a matter of debate, just a question of getting the information. An interesting plan would be to see if the Purdue folk can provide the information and then go to the debate with it in hand. How is he going to respond to, "Simulations carried out by the engineering department at Purdue indicate that X% of the fuel was available"? "nuh-uh!"?

[Mr.Herbert]

Water Woo Ryan said:

Quote:

I'm willing to accept your challenge again, given one small test of your abilities.

Isn't that similar to this :

Quote:

The Wizard: Silence, whipper-snapper! The Beneficent Oz has every intention of granting your requests. [Lion regains consciousness.] Cowardly Lion: What's that? Huh? What did he say? The Wizard: But first you must prove yourselves worthy by performing a very small task. Bring me the broomstick of the Witch of the West.

[BillyRayValentine]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

BTW, shouldn't the answer to the question be more or less answered from the Purdue simulations? In that case, it's not really a matter of debate, just a question of getting the information. An interesting plan would be to see if the Purdue folk can provide the information and then go to the debate with it in hand. How is he going to respond to, "Simulations carried out by the engineering department at Purdue indicate that X% of the fuel was available"? "nuh-uh!"?

Kevin Ryan, Certified Quality Engineer and former professional water-tester, has drawn on his vast certified quality engineering and water-testing expertise to determine that the Purdue simulation is a sham. He refers to it as "at best, criminally negligent science on the part of a small segment of the Purdue faculty".

Here's his "open letter" to the pres. of Purdue regarding said simulation: http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=71#more-71

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Mark has effectively done what I was about to recommend: don't answer now, but say that you are willing to discuss the topic in the debate.

It's not as if I haven't written about fuel distribution in the towers. I discuss it in depth in my Rodriguez paper, and I even posted about it here yesterday.

[uk_dave]

Quote:

Suely (sic) you can answer this one simple question that is central to the entire debate. There are no scientific or engineering skills involved in the answer, only the ability to read.

When you have an answer, let me know. By the way, from what I've heard the debate only lasts one hour, so a four hour delay in response might be a problem.

If you decide that you cannot answer this one fundamental question, please stop lurking at my blog as if you did have some knowledge to offer.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10253#comment

Expect Ryan to back out in....10...9...8...7