Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

[JamesB]

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.

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/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

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

 

[tomwaits]

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.

 

[R.Mackey]

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...

 

[tomwaits]

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...

 

[JamesB]

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!

 

[tomwaits]

just wait until he finds out that chucksheen is not actually charlie sheen!

 

[R.Mackey]

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!

 

[JamesB]

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.

 

[cmcaulif]

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?

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.

 

[uk_dave]

Yeah well, 'truthers' aren't known for their ability to either understand or accurately represent the studies they seek to critique.

 

[R.Mackey]

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."

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

 

[Mr. Skinny]

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.

 

[JAStewart]

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=e...+out+personal+details+on+the+internet&spell=1

 

[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.

 

[uk_dave]

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......

 

[bje]

Note the "requirements" for having a letter published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:

"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."

 

[Good Lt]

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:

"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."

 

[Drudgewire]

My real name is Drudgewire and I'd appreciate these twoofers not making an issue out of my parent's obvious massive drug usage.

 

[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.