View Single Post
Old 4th December 2007, 11:34 PM   #3
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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:
  1. Refute it properly (this won't cut it, for obvious reasons),
  2. Acknowledge his errors and those of the Truth Movement, or
  3. 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...
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top