IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 4th December 2007, 11:12 PM   #1
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

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.
http://journalof911studies.com/lette...ckeyLetter.pdf

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

Last edited by JamesB; 4th December 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason: Added quote
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 4th December 2007, 11:16 PM   #2
tomwaits
Master Poster
 
tomwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
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.
tomwaits 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 4th December 2007, 11:34 PM   #3
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
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
Old 4th December 2007, 11:39 PM   #4
tomwaits
Master Poster
 
tomwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
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...
tomwaits 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 4th December 2007, 11:40 PM   #5
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
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!
__________________
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 4th December 2007, 11:44 PM   #6
tomwaits
Master Poster
 
tomwaits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,288
just wait until he finds out that chucksheen is not actually charlie sheen!
tomwaits 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 4th December 2007, 11:44 PM   #7
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
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!
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 4th December 2007, 11:48 PM   #8
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
__________________
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 4th December 2007, 11:58 PM   #9
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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?

Quote:
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.
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, 12:03 AM   #10
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Yeah well, 'truthers' aren't known for their ability to either understand or accurately represent the studies they seek to critique.
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 5th December 2007, 12:03 AM   #11
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by cmcaulif View Post
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.
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." 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."
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 5th December 2007, 03:11 AM   #12
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: 33,287
Originally Posted by tomwaits View Post
Quote:
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
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 5th December 2007 at 03:11 AM.
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 5th December 2007, 05:11 AM   #13
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,843
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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, 05:17 AM   #14
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
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...ternet&spell=1
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart 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, 06:13 AM   #15
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
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.
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, 06:17 AM   #16
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
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!
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......

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 5th December 2007, 06:19 AM   #17
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,281
Note the "requirements" for having a letter published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

Quote:
"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."
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

Last edited by bje; 5th December 2007 at 06:20 AM.
bje 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, 06:45 AM   #18
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
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 (Journal of the American Medical Association). Dozens of links, instructions, criteria, categories, rules, etc.

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

Quote:
"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."
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith

Last edited by Good Lt; 5th December 2007 at 06:46 AM. Reason: Fixed link.
Good Lt 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, 06:47 AM   #19
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
 
Drudgewire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
My real name is Drudgewire and I'd appreciate these twoofers not making an issue out of my parent's obvious massive drug usage.
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."
-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet
Drudgewire 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, 07:22 AM   #20
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,810
*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.
Sabrina 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, 07:26 AM   #21
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
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.
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?
tsig 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 AM   #22
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
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.
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.
__________________
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, 08:31 AM   #23
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,726
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.
Maybe we could go with "Lyin' Ryan"?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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, 08:38 AM   #24
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
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.
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.
~enigma~ 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, 08:39 AM   #25
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
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, 08:46 AM   #26
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
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.
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.

Last edited by DavidJames; 5th December 2007 at 08:49 AM.
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, 08:48 AM   #27
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
I got one paragraph in his Aqualetter but just didn't see the point in wasting any more time after he wrote

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

Last edited by ~enigma~; 5th December 2007 at 08:50 AM.
~enigma~ 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, 08:52 AM   #28
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,455
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.
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.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 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, 08:54 AM   #29
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
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

Last edited by ~enigma~; 5th December 2007 at 08:54 AM.
~enigma~ 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, 08:58 AM   #30
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
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.
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, 09:00 AM   #31
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
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/lette...ckeyLetter.pdf
I guess David Ray Griffin was too busy trying to bend spoons or something.
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.
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.
__________________
"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 5th December 2007, 09:01 AM   #32
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
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?
~enigma~ 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, 09:02 AM   #33
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
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.
__________________
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, 09:03 AM   #34
Minadin
Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
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.

Last edited by Minadin; 5th December 2007 at 09:03 AM.
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 5th December 2007, 09:03 AM   #35
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,455
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.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 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, 09:05 AM   #36
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.

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

Quote:
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!
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, 09:31 AM   #37
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
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.
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?)
beachnut 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, 10:14 AM   #38
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,959
Originally Posted by Waterboy
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.

Last edited by LashL; 5th December 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason: to fix font
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, 10:34 AM   #39
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
[quote]
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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'?
Quote:
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?

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

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...
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.
__________________
"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 5th December 2007, 10:44 AM   #40
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
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.
Quote:
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
Quote:
Brainster-Maybe we could go with "Lyin' Ryan"?
Quote:
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...
Quote:
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
__________________
"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
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 11:45 AM.
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.