Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

 

[peteweaver]

Swing, instead of talking gibberish and supporting an attack on a member of this board, by a sacked wannabe metallurgist, perhaps you'd like to tell everyone how the WTC's steel could have withstood the combined damage of full speed plane crashes, and fires.

 

[Architect]

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

Prove it.

 

[DGM]

Personally I believe it is a non-sequitur concerning whether a person who works on weapons systems would be more likely to support the Bush administration's explanation of the events of 911. There are many who have and still do work in the defense industry who simply don't believe the explanation we have been given by this administration. On the other hand, there are those who do not work in the defense industry who seem to accept the Bush administration's explanation.

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

Tony:
I agree that Ryan's mention of this was pointless. What do you think were the highlights of Ryan's letter (if any)?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Prove it.

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
I agree that Ryan's mention of this was pointless. What do you think were the highlights of Ryan's letter (if any)?

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.

 

[DGM]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.

Fair enough.

I won't press you for details considering it was not your work.

Thanks

 

[twinstead]

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.

Then what do you have to say to people who work in the same industry who say they don't know ANY? Do you just know a lot of conspiracy theorists?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would not call this one of the best points Kevin Ryan made in that paper and I wish he would have left that particular point out.

It's a shame there isn't some system by which such criticisms could be brought to an author's attention - some sort of review by the author's peers, for example.

Dave

 

[Architect]

I personally know a lot of them. I have metioned the industry I work in here.

Firstly Tony, I think I own you an apology for never getting around to that technical debate.

However moving along, what you're asking me to do is take your word for it that (a) you have spoken to many people in your industry who have concerns about the official explanation of 911, (b) that there are not a correspondingly large proportion of respondents who support that account, and (c) this is in itself representative of the wider defence community.

Now when I make similar comments about the construction industry view, which is of course pretty much in support of the conventional collapse explanation, most Truthers usually claim that such an account is to be set at nought.

So which is it?

 

[pomeroo]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.

Again, I ask you to tell us what you know about demolition that people who work in the industry do not. Why are demolition specialists unanimous in their belief that the 9/11 fantasy movement's myths about explosives in the Towers are pure moonshine?

 

[beachnut]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall, except for the part about Ryan Mackey's working in a government defense industry setting being a motive for him to defend the Bush administration's explanation for the events of 911.

I obviously disagree with Ryan Mackey concerning the causes of the complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 since I have written publicly on why I do believe those buildings were brought down via controlled demolitions.

Must be your demonstrated lack of knowledge on 9/11, leading to this conclusion of woo. Kevin's paper is junk and pure ignorance; reminds me of most of the posted 9/11 truth junk at the journal of woo.

 

[Gravy]

I thought Kevin Ryan's letter was good overall...

Specifically what does Ryan get right? You're a peer reviewer for JONES, so you should have no problem answering this question.

 

[LashL]

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

Quite likely, yes. Mick Harrison may have been providing his services to Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) for free but the other two lawyers - the two who refused to sign off on Waterboy's (Kevin Ryan's) second amended complaint - almost certainly were not.

Still, since Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) has long been panhandling from his fellow tinhatters in order to fund his ill-fated and nonsensical litigation, he most certainly should have kept his fellow tinhatters abreast of the progress of his ill-advised and spectacularly unsuccessful endeavours along the way.

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) should have been posting the documents himself every step of the way, and should have been offering content and context, but he did not. All he has done is run, hide, whine, snivel, and then criticize others for posting the evidence of his failures.

Kevin Ryan is an idiot.

On the up side, perhaps at least a few "truthers" will learn from the fiasco and realize that Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) and the entire "truth" movement is full of crap.

*Yes, I repeated the name of Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) as often as possible for purposes of Google searches.

 

[~enigma~]

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan)

Waterboy is Adam Sandler. Kevin Ryan is just some idiot who belongs in a sewage plant. Call him Aquaman but please wear a noseplug

 

[beachnut]

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.

6 years, and this is the best you will ever do... sad

peaked out ...

finished

done

complete

failure

You will not forget me, you will not let me. Total failure, comes early, you can start over, but time will cast a spell on you, get far from 9/11 so you can recover and be free ... if you run away now you can escape and recover, change your name and express knowledge and judgments from this day forward and forever more ... amen

last chance

 

[slyjoe]

Quite likely, yes. Mick Harrison may have been providing his services to Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) for free but the other two lawyers - the two who refused to sign off on Waterboy's (Kevin Ryan's) second amended complaint - almost certainly were not.

Still, since Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) has long been panhandling from his fellow tinhatters in order to fund his ill-fated and nonsensical litigation, he most certainly should have kept his fellow tinhatters abreast of the progress of his ill-advised and spectacularly unsuccessful endeavours along the way.

Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) should have been posting the documents himself every step of the way, and should have been offering content and context, but he did not. All he has done is run, hide, whine, snivel, and then criticize others for posting the evidence of his failures.

(Waterboy) Kevin Ryan is an idiot.

On the up side, perhaps at least a few "truthers" will learn from the fiasco and realize that Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) and the entire "truth" movement is full of crap.

*Yes, I repeated the name of Waterboy (Kevin Ryan) as often as possible for purposes of Google searches.

Fixed that one for you LashL

 

[beachnut]

Kevin Ryan is an idiot.

Why is the truth not available for 9/11 truth?