• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...

Typical Aquaboy defense. He did the same to my company and a co-worker. Aquaboy couldn't actually debate the evidence with a respected structural engineer, so he simpley dismissed his argument with a breath of "He works on gubmit jobs! He can't be trusted to tell da twoof!" Absolutely amazing. You'd be hard pressed to find any leading architects and engineers who haven't worked on government contracts. At the moment I have on my plate, several US Army proposals, a big oil company report and a large urban security upgrade, which was brought upon by 9/11. Can't trust me either.

Sorry Apollo20, but Aquaboy is a slandering paranoid tool who deserves no respect from the professional world.
 
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.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
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.
Click to expand...

rwguinn said:
And if you dig into the literature, you'll find that the F-35 Lightning II is a
Weapons DELIVERY System. It is not a weapons systems itself.

Take it from one who knows.
IPT Wing
Subsystems Tech. Lead.
Me.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to concede to your definition, but again, I think it's splitting hairs.

I suppose that since I live in the laboratory world, anything that actually ends up going on an aircraft is loosely called "something" that is used on a "weapons system", be it a bomb, sensor, engine, or whatever. I suppose you Lockheed folks call it a "weapons delivery system".

Still not worth arguing over, IMO.
 
malmoe said:
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 syste
Click to expand...

Wow, i'm not surprised you are making rubbish mistakes again.

Fighter Aircraft are weapons delivery platforms. If you only work on the engines you do not work on weapons systems. I used to work on weapons systems and if he had claimed that about me he would have been true.

Not in Mr Mackey's case though case though.

Fail again
 
rwguinn said:
And if you dig into the literature, you'll find that the F-35 Lightning II is a
Weapons DELIVERY System. It is not a weapons systems itself.

Take it from one who knows.
IPT Wing
Subsystems Tech. Lead.
Me.

Garb-The JSF is a fighter. Just because it includes weapons systems doesn't mean that that is all it is.
Click to expand...
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?

Sorry but your arguing against....
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 systemshttp://www.jsf.mil/http://www.jsf.mil/http://www.jsf.mil/ for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. The F-35 is the next generation strike fighter bringing cutting-edge technologies to the battlespace of the future. The JSFs advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and firepower will ensure that the F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many warfighters across the globe.
Click to expand...

RMackey worked on a program that created a strike aircraft weapon systems,ie the Joint Strike Aircraft is a weapon system. Now Rmacky may have not worked on the 'weapons' on this weapon system, but the point remains true when Kevin Ryan states he worked on the strike aircraft weapon systemes, ie. the JSF. Please move on...


tsig Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Did you read the 10 page response?
Did you?
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I'm willing to concede to your definition, but again, I think it's splitting hairs.

Still not worth arguing over, IMO.
Click to expand...

Well at least someone has come to their senses. And I agree that it is splitting hairs and not worth arguing over...which makes me wonder why Rmackey didn't choose something more robust to offer a rebuttal to rather than this. Say like items regarding the collapse of the towers, etc.
 
Now Rmacky may have not worked on the 'weapons' on this weapon system, but the point remains true when Kevin Ryan states he worked on the strike aircraft weapon systemes, ie. the JSF. Please move on...
Click to expand...
And this does what to refute anything Mackey wrote demolishing DRG...? And it does what to prove that 9-11 was an inside job? And this does what to prop up the hilariously inept ad hominem letter Ryan wrote to his fake journal?

Nothing?

Please move on.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Well at least someone has come to their senses. And I agree that it is splitting hairs and not worth arguing over...which makes me wonder why Rmackey didn't choose something more robust to offer a rebuttal to rather than this. Say like items regarding the collapse of the towers, etc.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Well we have all seen many of these warnings before...so

JREF just proved this correct...
Click to expand...

Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".
 
metamars said:
Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".
Click to expand...

How are religious debates won?

9-11 'truth' isn't about science and it's not even about a coherent political ideology, it's about belief and faith.

'Truthers' say 9-11 was an inside job and have no need to back this claim up with evidence or facts because they have a belief system and faith in their beliefs.

We cannot change the hardcore 'truthers' anymore than we could change a devout christian, muslim etc.

We can, however, point out to the gallery just how absurd and baseless these 'truther' beliefs really are.
 
Apollo20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I know from this point onward we will not have you refer to those who post here as NISTIANS or other such...because above all else I know we can count on you living by your own words.

TAM;)
 
Molinaro said:
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.
Click to expand...

We do it to put on display the foolishness, the paranoia, the ridiculousness of their theories and comments, so that people looking for answers or at least logic, can find it through the truther weeds.

metamars said:
Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".
Click to expand...

Why attack ONLY the strongest arguments (Can't think of any strong arguments from truthers off the top, but I'll assume they have a couple), when you can attack and debunk all of them?

TAM:)
 
metamars said:
Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.
Click to expand...
There is no rule here against calling people who aren't forum members liars or morons.

Kevin Ryan is demonstrably a liar and an intellectual coward. If he doesn't like being called that, then he should change his behavior. 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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
metamars said:
Methinks it's rather obvious that many JREF'ers doth smear too loudly.

Of course, scientific debates are won by successfully adressing your opponents strongest arguments. Preferentially going after their weakest arguments, smearing, etc., are how political arguments are "won".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Ad Homs ARE the twoofers strongest arguments...
 
Apollo20 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmm, would you look at that! Splitting hairs over an issue totally irrelevant to the science! An issue not worth arguing over! Go Swing go! After the irrelevancy!

Anyway, the term "NISTIANS" may imply fanaticism, so it could be derogatory. But as others have pointed out, Ryan's not a member of these forums, so he's not under the protection clause.

-Sporanox
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom