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.]

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.]

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]

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]

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/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/FullScaleFireTestBRE215741.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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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":

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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