Kevin Ryan’s Allegations of Chris Mohr’s Dishonesty
One more time, here is Kevin Ryan’s blog attacking Dr. James Millette’s credibility and my honesty:
http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/whe...n-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/
It’s worth mentioning that the phrase “Mohr is Less” was first thrown at me from Bob the Junior High School Bully. I never expected I would hear that term used in a public attack against me some 45 years later. Kevin, how old are we anyway?
Here are some of Kevin Ryan’s accusations against me as being “dishonest” (from his blog) and my responses: “…Jim Millette, a long-time government scientist who worked for the EPA and now runs his own business called MVA Scientific Consultants. Unfortunately, although Mohr took months to find this new champion, it took him only seconds to decide that he would say nothing about Millette’s leadership of the government studies on WTC dust. When Mohr wrote to me in a mass email asking for pre-processed samples to use in his new project, he failed to mention anything about Millette’s past work on WTC dust.”
My initial email to Kevin Ryan and a handful of 9/11 Truth leaders (in no way a mass email) was an initial inquiry for Kevin to participate in a new dust study. I asked him for a sample of red-gray chips he believed had unignited thermitic materials in them for a truly independent analysis. I was open to answering any and all questions. It was not easy to find a knowledgeable dust analyst who was willing to take seriously such a study. There was no intention to deceive, just to make a simple request and open up dialogue.
[Concerning my Skeptic magazine article about the controlled demolition theory]: “While providing utterly unconvincing and vacuous answers to a dozen straw man questions, Mohr’s article ignores essentially all the evidence presented in ten years by real 9/11 skeptics.”
I got the “straw man questions” from my debate with Richard Gage: free-fall collapse speeds, squibs, iron microspheres, sulfidized steel, unignited nanothermites, accounts of explosions, etc. “Straw man questions”? Kevin should know better; I dealt directly with some of the core technical claims of the 9/11 Truth movement. “Utterly unconvincing and vacuous”? Not to the dozens of physicists, metallurgists, chemists, structural engineers, explosives experts, forensic scientists, heavy equipment operators, foundry workers, fire safety experts and other specialists who congratulated me on my accurate and patient reportage (and mercilessly corrected mistakes I made in my first drafts). Kevin Ryan has offered nothing more than an insulting hand waving dismissal of me, not a rebuttal. This tells us much more about Kevin Ryan than it does about me. It certainly hurts to be on the receiving end of such a blatant, unsupported ad hominem attack. Kevin, you’re better than this! My 9/11 Truth friends tell me I should be more compassionate towards Kevin because he takes so much flack for his courageous stands. This is true, but when he makes public attacks like this, he needs to be called to account.
“Of course, Mohr won’t tell you about the accusations of fraud either… In any case it is very interesting that it took Mohr several months of contacting dozens of labs to find the one person who did all the government laboratory work on the WTC dust. We might wonder about the other dozens of labs. Wouldn’t they take Mohr’s money? In the end, why did Mohr insist on using this one lab that had been implicated in charges of fraud related to WTC dust analysis?... We might never know.”
The “charges of fraud” is in reference to Cate Jenkins’s complaint against the EPA which peripherally mentions Jim Millette (see the post above). I already answered this charge in a private email to him but Kevin Ryan went ahead and attacked me publicly, implying I would never answer his questions even though I already had!
One of the many things I did when checking out Jim Millette was to look him up and google keyword phrases like “Jim Millette 9/11 Truth” to see if there had been any accusations against him. I found none. I was only dimly aware of the Cate Jenkins complaints against the EPA, and the accusation that I was being “dishonest” because I somehow should have known that there were four benign footnotes regarding Jim Millette in an obscure failed complaint against the EPA is patently unfair. It’s even more unfair when you consider that Dr. Jenkins actually praises Millette’s work (see post above)!
Kevin Ryan et al’s 2009 Bentham paper was met with deafening silence by the mainstream scientific community, a fact which all 9/11 Truth researchers bemoan: “The simple fact that professional scientists could publish such evidence, and over a period of three years be met with no answer from government and academic leaders, is an astounding fact that speaks volumes about the mindlessness that pervades society today… Three years without a response is response enough.”
What baffles me is that I have made it clear in my debates and interactions with 9/11 Truth activists that I take this study very seriously and have never stated it was worthless junk science. I have said that the record of followup studies has been abysmal, and I have been in contact with many 9/11 activists who share my frustration that no serious attempt has been made to replicate the findings of this paper. Since no one on either side was taking the initiative to organize such a study, I took it upon myself to do it. For many in 9/11 Truth, this has been a “Halleluliah” moment, that someone in traditional scientific circles has made a serious effort to find unignited thermitic materials in the dust. No longer can Kevin Ryan or anyone else complain that no one is taking them seriously.
Everyone should know that among the financial supporters of this study are four 9/11 Truth activists. Other top 9/11 truth people are also supportive of this project and think I have done a good job of organizing a good study. It’s controversial, even within the 9/11 Truth movement. Each individual must be very careful to keep your eyes open going forward here.
Did I make mistakes in this process? Yes, I did. I was afraid of Kevin’s growing impatience with me and I did the search for an independent verifier of his study without him. In hindsight I wish I had asked Kevin if he wanted to work together with me to find a researcher and a verification process both he and the “skeptics” could agree on. It’s never too late to do that. The Jim Millette study turned up no thermitic materials, but as they say, you can’t prove a negative. I am open to helping broker yet another study both sides could sign off on in advance, using Kevin’s samples. If Kevin doesn’t trust me, I know at least one other person who might consider doing this (on the 9/11 Truth side).
“Ad hominem” is not adult behavior and it’s past time Kevin Ryan be called out for what he is doing. He’s gotten away with it because people in the traditional scientific community have ignored his attacks. He won’t get away with it with me.
There are two other accusations I have heard against my conduct in this whole matter. A 9/11 activist pointed out that Millette’s results were due out February 15 but asserted that he was going to wait until after the forensics convention so he and forensics experts worldwide can massage the data together. In fact, Dr. Millette called me on February 15 and apologized that the report wasn’t ready, that he was overwhelmed with all the data he collected, and asked for one more day. I asked him if it would help if he got peer review input from the forensics experts and he said yes, very much, so we agreed on a two week delay. The idea that forensic scientists from around the world would conspire with Dr. Millette to willfully distort data in violation of their Code of Ethics is outside the limits of credibility for me. It’s part one of his protocol for peer review, nothing more.
People who have been following my posts on JREF have also complained that I called Dr. Millette “Lab Guy” until December, when I finally made my formal request for contributions to support this study. Why so secretive? Hiring decisions are not like data collection; human beings are involved, and it is not wise to name candidates to do controversial work until you are confident they can do the job. I had two major concerns, which I openly shared with people:
1) Can Lab Guy actually report on thermitic materials if he finds it, or will he cower and misrepresent the data out of fear of being ridiculed by his peers? (His response: "If I find it I'll publish it.")
2) Can Lab Guy deal with the personal attacks he will receive from some people in 9/11 Truth?
I needed someone who could take the heat from both sides. We talked about both issues and more. I also needed time to research his credentials, background, find out what he suggested as a protocol, get personal recommendations from his past clients, etc. All of this I did without naming him. I thought he might fail one of my “tests,” and I saw no point in naming him and then rejecting him.
One last time: I’m willing to address legitimate concerns about Dr. Millette and why I chose him, but I am unwilling to engage in endless debates about my honesty or whether Dr. Millette is “deceitful.” So now I hope you’ll go back to the thread which focuses on the scientific evidence against thermitic materials in the dust so we can talk about what’s really important:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8069213&posted=1#post8069213
