Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

[Billdave2]

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

See, crystal clear.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

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

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

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

Some of my best friends are NISTIANS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Max:

Lack of evidence. Do try to keep up.

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

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

you explain it to him Max...lol

TAM

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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

you explain it to him Max...lol

TAM

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

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

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

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

I'm still not clear.

The same way we ruled out Godzila job or FSM job or aliens from outer space job.

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

[cmcaulif]

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

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

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/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.

[Apollo20]

Cmcaulif:

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

Let's compare apples with apples please.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

JamesB:

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

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

[cmcaulif]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Cmcaulif:

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

Let's compare apples with apples please.

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

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

[LashL]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

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.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

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

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

Every discussion follows the same format:

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


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

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

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

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

I'm still not clear.

You ain't kidding--for once.

[JamesB]

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

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

[LashL]

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

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

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

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

Further, he outright lies when he writes in his "letter":

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]

Originally Posted by JamesB

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

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

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

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

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

[T.A.M.]

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

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

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

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

TAM

[LashL]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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

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

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

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

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

JamesB:

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

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

I was on a different forum when Mr Ryan first came out with his claims. His name was still on UL's web site at the time. I was one among many that I know that emailed UL to complain that Mr Ryan was pretending to be someone that he was not.

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

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

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Gravy

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.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Minadin

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Sabrina

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

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

But it looks so good on you !

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is exactly what Kevin Ryan is saying:

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

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

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

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

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Minadin

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?

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

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

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

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

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

What is your 'debunker' spin on that point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to work! Have a nice day everyone.

[boloboffin]

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.

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

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

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

[LashL]

Bumpedy bump.

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

An honourable person would have done so.

[Architect]

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

[R.Mackey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Architect]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

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

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

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

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

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

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

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

[Architect]

Originally Posted by uk_dave

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......

[Architect]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

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

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

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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

You mean, other than rwguinn.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

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.