IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags kevin ryan

Reply
Old 5th December 2007, 02:17 PM   #81
Billdave2
Muse
 
Billdave2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 591
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.
Billdave2 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
Old 5th December 2007, 02:20 PM   #82
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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

Last edited by T.A.M.; 5th December 2007 at 02:20 PM.
T.A.M. 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
Old 5th December 2007, 02:21 PM   #83
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
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
T.A.M. 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
Old 5th December 2007, 02:23 PM   #84
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,858
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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
Old 5th December 2007, 02:34 PM   #85
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
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.

Last edited by DavidJames; 5th December 2007 at 02:34 PM.
DavidJames 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
Old 5th December 2007, 02:57 PM   #86
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
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/pro...tBRE215741.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.

Last edited by cmcaulif; 5th December 2007 at 02:57 PM.
cmcaulif 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
Old 5th December 2007, 03:45 PM   #87
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
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.
Apollo20 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
Old 5th December 2007, 04:00 PM   #88
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.

Last edited by Mince; 5th December 2007 at 04:55 PM.
Mince 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
Old 5th December 2007, 04:42 PM   #89
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.

Last edited by cmcaulif; 5th December 2007 at 04:47 PM.
cmcaulif 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
Old 5th December 2007, 05:37 PM   #90
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,960
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
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.

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.

Last edited by LashL; 5th December 2007 at 05:38 PM.
LashL 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
Old 5th December 2007, 06:26 PM   #91
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
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 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
Old 5th December 2007, 06:34 PM   #92
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
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.


Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
I'm still not clear.

You ain't kidding--for once.

Last edited by pomeroo; 5th December 2007 at 06:34 PM.
pomeroo 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
Old 5th December 2007, 08:06 PM   #93
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Wow, now Jones is promoting this dreck over at 911 Blogger. This guy is clueless.

http://911blogger.com/node/12829
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB 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
Old 5th December 2007, 08:22 PM   #94
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,960
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":
Originally Posted by Waterboy
...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 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
Old 5th December 2007, 08:26 PM   #95
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,960
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
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.
LashL 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
Old 5th December 2007, 08:33 PM   #96
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 5th December 2007 at 08:35 PM.
PhantomWolf 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
Old 5th December 2007, 08:41 PM   #97
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
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

Last edited by T.A.M.; 5th December 2007 at 08:42 PM.
T.A.M. 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
Old 5th December 2007, 09:55 PM   #98
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,960
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
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.

Last edited by LashL; 5th December 2007 at 09:56 PM.
LashL 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
Old 6th December 2007, 12:33 AM   #99
stilicho
Trurl's Electronic Bard
 
stilicho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,757
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.
__________________
"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue... It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN

LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."
Rolfe: "I really hate lawyers."
stilicho 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
Old 6th December 2007, 02:20 AM   #100
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,346
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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 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
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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
Old 6th December 2007, 09:29 AM   #101
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post

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
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.

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.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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
Old 6th December 2007, 09:37 AM   #102
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.
Minadin 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
Old 6th December 2007, 10:29 AM   #103
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
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.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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
Old 6th December 2007, 10:37 AM   #104
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Sabrina View Post
*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.
But it looks so good on you !
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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
Old 6th December 2007, 11:22 AM   #105
Crungy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.
Crungy 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
Old 6th December 2007, 12:04 PM   #106
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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?

Last edited by Minadin; 6th December 2007 at 12:06 PM.
Minadin 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
Old 6th December 2007, 12:27 PM   #107
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
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.
Quote:
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?
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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
Old 6th December 2007, 01:35 PM   #108
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.
Minadin 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
Old 6th December 2007, 02:54 PM   #109
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Quote:
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 is completely consistent with the PBS quote.

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.
boloboffin 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
Old 6th December 2007, 03:03 PM   #110
Crungy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.
Crungy 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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:04 AM   #111
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,960
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.

Last edited by LashL; 8th December 2007 at 12:13 AM.
LashL 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
Old 8th December 2007, 03:16 AM   #112
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,763
Maybe he's still trying to payt off the fee notes already accrued?
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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
Old 8th December 2007, 11:48 AM   #113
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
On the nature of "weapons systems"

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.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 8th December 2007 at 11:49 AM.
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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:10 PM   #114
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post

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.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:28 PM   #115
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post

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.
uk_dave 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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:33 PM   #116
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
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.
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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:33 PM   #117
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.


I'm only here because it's more entertaining that Strictly Dancing, you know......
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:34 PM   #118
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,763
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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....
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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
Old 8th December 2007, 12:52 PM   #119
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
...This is all academic. I'm still waiting for anyone to find errors in my whitepaper...

You mean, other than rwguinn.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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
Old 8th December 2007, 02:03 PM   #120
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
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.
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.