IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

12 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Ryan Mackey " There Is Nothing To Debate"

rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 05:18 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Ryan Mackey, a self-proclaimed "debunker", has many times claimed "there is nothing to debate" and "the information is absurd, so why debate?" as an excuse to refuse debate based on analysis presented by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Yet seems to do just that day and night in the comfort of J.REF mixed in with usual spin, unsourced claims and libel.

It has been brought to my attention today that Mr Mackey is currently "debating" the "Physics of 9/11" without an opponent on a local public access show "Hardfire" with host Ron Wieck. (which by the way, sell DVD's of these shows to raise funds, yet we get accused of "being in it for the money")

What is their first installment for debate when there is "nothing to debate"? No Plane Theory.



Ron, why dont you have Ryan tackle real topics with real professionals as opposition? Yeah, we know why.

It is clear "Ryan Mackey" is unable to debate with any opponent. His first installment debating "No Plane Theory" (without an opponent so much as Killtown) demonstrates a clear sign of weakness and lack of confidence in his own work. Mackey himself admits he may have made many mistakes in his above presentation. And after analyzing much of his work regarding our presentations/analysis, I can see why. Mackey has been proven to be wrong on much of his work, now he has proven to not have a backbone behind his work, and it appears Ryan feels the most important topic (as chosen for the first installment) "worthy" of "debate" (without an opponent) is the No Plane Theory. Really Ryan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 13 2009, 05:25 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Oh jeebus, NOT that McDonnell-Douglas F4 Phantom II clip again! [groan of Pentagon irrelevance to Sandia test]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 07:00 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Some formatting issues below... i apologize for the inconvenience...

QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: "'Pilots For Truth'" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>, rmackey_email@earthlink.net
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 6:18 PM

Rob,



One major problem with your complaint leaps out at me. Mackey, far from being wrong on “much” of his work, has NEVER been shown to be wrong about ANYTHING.



Your assertion that my producer sells DVDs to raise “funds” strikes me as odd. Gary sells DVDs to pick up a few bucks—VERY few bucks. He pays the expenses associated with airing ‘Hardfire’ out of his own pocket. I pay my parking expenses out of my own pocket. The show can be fun, but it sure as hell ain’t profitable. But then you already knew that.



Who are the professionals Mackey won’t debate? The clowns who imagine a preposterously implausible flyover of the Pentagon, despite the absence of a single eyewitness to support their fantasy? The bumbling amateurs who can’t interpret the FDR found at the CRASH SITE? The agenda-driven cranks who wave away a mountain of physical evidence: aircraft parts and human remains?



Mackey “admits” that he is human, and therefore imperfect. If you think he has made mistakes in his presentation, why not SHOW US ONE OF THEM?


QUOTE
From: Pilots For Truth <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: rmackey_email@earthlink.net, "Ronald Wieck" <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 6:30 PM

Ron, You people chose for your first installment to "debate" the "clowns" who believe no planes hit the WTC. You did this via a highly snoozer production, horribly edited, with terrible audio. You people chose to "debate" these "clowns" as your first installement (sans opponent), while making excuses to not debate professionals who can be verified in the FAA database, fly passengers around the world daily, and information provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Yeah.. .very productive on your part to choose NPT as your first installment. lol Again.. i'll be calling you soon. Expect it to be recorded, expect Mackey to be exposed by your own words and his own words... and posted to the net. Mackey is debating highly techinical analysis sans opponent regarding a theory many feel is absurd (even those within the 'troof movement'). So, his past excuses for refusing debate on a 30 min show are moot, and his past excuses refusing to 'debate' absurd data is also moot. Mackey is a walking contradiction. Proven.
Mackey is also a joke. This is why he will never debate anyone with real credentials/experience as the expression on his face when backed into such a corner bysomeone with actual knowledge of the topic will tell the average layman everything he wants to know about your "Mackey", in less than a NY minute. I also think i caught a few times you dozing off in his presentation...lol Hope you're doing well Ron... i always liked you, regardless of our differences... Regards,Rob


QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: "'Pilots For Truth'" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Ryan Mackey" <rmackey1138@earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 6:33 PM

Rob,



I don’t want to give the impression that I favor suppressing dissenting opinions. I encourage informed debate. What I can’t help noticing is that the fantasy movement is reluctant to subject its cherished myths to critical scrutiny. The charlatan Richard Gage endlessly recycles ancient and thoroughly debunked nonsense. The arch-fraud David Ray Griffin steadfastly refuses to confront his army of critics. The cowardly loon Morgan Reynolds hides under his bed whenever I demand that he run his bogus science by an actual physics teacher. Steven Jones has tweaked his contaminated dust sample for years without finding anything worth mentioning. Is this any way to run a revolution?



Do you want to debate Mackey on ‘Hardfire’? Are you interested in replaying the recent humiliations of your colleagues in a host of the govt loyalist site threads? Your position is utterly bankrupt, but if you want to go through the motions again, we can discuss it.



Ron


QUOTE
"What I can’t help noticing is that the fantasy movement is reluctant to subject its cherished myths to critical scrutiny"


The same can be said of the "debunker movement", as is proven with your "Hardfire debate" with guest "Ryan Mackey", sans any opponent, combined with the fact that Mackey feels debating data provided by the NTSB, analyzed by verfied professionals is "absurd", yet has chosen to put people to sleep with debating NPT as your first installment. Ron, i have told you time and time again, via email, via recorded line, via Richard Green, we'll take on "Mackey" and his absurd analysis/speculation of the NTSB data, any day, any time. It appears "Mackey" would rather "debate" NPT without an opponent. I dont blame him after exposing his BS regarding the NTSB data. Keep in mind, these emails will be saved and published. I dont expect Mackey to weigh in on anything here, after all, here he has a real opponent who "subjects his analysis to critical scrutiny". How old is he anyway? He looks 14....lol Regards,Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 07:37 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Cc: "'Ryan Mackey'" <rmackey1138@earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 7:21 PM

Actually, none of my points are wrong. Tell me what you want to add to the dismal performance of your surrogates on the the govt loyalist site.


QUOTE
Anytime you want to host your show properly with an actual opponent on topics less absurd, let us know. You have my email.

Until then, wait for my call like a good boy... :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 07:45 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Cc: "'Ryan Mackey'" <rmackey1138@earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 7:36 PM

Uh, Rob, adopting a patronizing tone with the host of a show you want to appear on really isn’t a thoughtful strategy. I indulge you because our telephone encounters have been friendly. Let’s keep it that way.

Mackey’s topic is the physics of the plane crashes. It is, manifestly, an important one. Discussing an imaginary flyover witnessed by no one is an exercise in absurdity.



Ron



QUOTE
uhhh... Ron, i could not care less if i appear on your "show". you initially chastized Pilots For 9/11 Truth for refusing to debate on your show when you and i couldnt hammer out the details, nor could you come up with a quote/claim from our site you would like to debate. Now it appears you would rather have on a "NASA Scientist" to debate "No planes at the WTC" (without an opponent), than to debate actual pilots, aviation professionals, FDR Experts and Aircraft Accident Investigators. Ron, it is clear where you stand. Again,' we'll go over all this on a recorded call, like we did every time in the past when you called us "frauds" (yet we can be verfied at faa.gov...lol). Regards,Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 08:07 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 7:52 PM

But, the people who pretend that a commercial airliner swooped down and headed straight toward the Pentagon, only to pull up at the last second, ARE frauds: delusional, fact-free frauds.



Mackey is delivering a lecture; he is not debating. In the lecture, he makes very specific statements that are either correct or not. SHOW US WHAT HE GETS WRONG!



The fantasy movement is a laughingstock because it contents itself with hurling abuse without ever challenging the real science presented by serious researchers. You should be tired of hearing me say this.



The terribly confused incompetents who had their scalps ripped off on the the govt loyalist site are not experts on FDRs, crash investigations, or anything else. As Beachnut would put it, “Got physics?”



Ron



QUOTE
Ron, These are the people you put your "faith" in (and i say faith because you have admitted to me, on a recorded line, you dont know the difference until you see actual debate, face to face)

Gravy - aka "Mark Roberts" - A NYC Tour Guide who still cries about the fact we had a heated exchange more than two years ago

"Reheat" - You admit is not verified at faa.gov

"Beachnut" - You admit is not verfied at faa.gov

"Pinch" aka William Paisley - Cannot be verified at faa.gov

"Ryan Mackey" - Claims to be a "NASA Scientist", but refuses to debate anything 'face to face' and choses as his first "debate" No Plane Theory at WTC sans opponent. Appears to be less than 20 years old.


Ron, the above are your "appeal to authority" due to the fact you have zero knowledge of the topic at hand.

These are MY "appeal to authority"... AND i have the 20+ years experience to verify the analysis...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

The lists continues to grow.


Unilke your "appeal to authority", mine can be verified at faa.gov and do not make excuse to refuse debate. Again Ron, anytime you want to have your 14 yr old "Mackey" take on real professionals, let us know. But i can see why Mackey makes excuse not to and instead would rather take on theories from people like "Killtown". Really strong "NASA Scientist" you got there Ron...lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 08:49 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



TF,

Mackey's email is in the above presentation. Feel free to email him. However, i doubt "Mackey" will take on any actual debate with any opponent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 09:44 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
From: Ryan Mackey <rmackey_email@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>, "Ron" <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Date: Friday, March 13, 2009, 9:26 PM

There IS nothing to debate, and the show was not a debate. It was a lecture. To quote Bill Maher, "you are the audience. Audience comes from the Latin, to listen." Anyway, the show was in no way intended to take on "no planers." That was just an example. We were trying to show the PROCESS, and we used a very simple example, one that should be obviously accurate to virtually anyone, but the result would have been the same regardless of the example chosen. The same technique applies no matter what physical question one asks. We also predicted that very few in the Truth Movement would understand this, and so far, this prediction has turned out to be accurate. Please do not forward such tripe to my mailbox again. I have a limited amount of time, and your commentary is fundamentally uninteresting.Thanks, Ryan Mackey

QUOTE
Your arrogance noted. (as if it hasnt already)



Are you of age to be "lecturing" professionals with experience/knowledge/education that exceeds more than double your life on this planet?



Well, i guess technically, you have only been "lecturing" those who follow "Killtown" as its clear you dont have the knowledge to tackle actual professionals.



Mackey, its clear why you would rather "lecture" with discliamers while fabricating excuse to not debate actual opponents.



You been proven wrong time and time again. You have nothing of substance to your arguments ("lectures") than to make excuse of refusing direct scrutiny of your work. Mackey, you lack self respect and you lack respect in your work. You do not want any direct confrontation of your work as apparent in your first snoozer appearance. I personally think its due to lack of self confidence due to your obvious immaturity (age) and life experience. It may also be due to the fact you lack any type of attention in your personal life. But thats only my personal opinion. For example... When i see people i think are "crackpots", i usually ignore them completely. Not give a 3 part series on why they are "crackpots".



Thank you for exposing your true colors "Ryan Mackey". We have a purpose. Its clear you deny yours. Also, thanks for the incredibly valuable sound bites. Maybe one day i'll actually cut em up to make sense... but unlike you, i dont spend much time on those i dont respect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 13 2009, 10:54 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Too funny.

Mackey admitted that we are the last hope for the TM, failed to refute the fine arguments of TheLoneBedouine (who was banned for it) but is too much of a chicken to debate us.

He only lives an hour away from us.

I'll meet him anywhere any time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 13 2009, 10:55 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



By the way folks, the above is how you flush out your opponent.

Notice how i titled this thread but didnt source the quote. I didnt need to as in the limited time i have studied Mackey, he has proven to be predictable...It was only a matter of time before it was sourced by the person himself as seen above this post.. without having to dig it out through the limitless bickering, libel and spin produced on the GL site... wink.gif

It appears all Ryan Mackey knows is how to "lecture", while adding caveats, "I may have made a mistake" (demonstrates lack of discipline) as he did in the above video. Such statements prove there is something to debate regarding such presentations/analysis (although P4T does not endorse NPT). Instead, it appears young Ryan Mackey has seen too many Star Wars flicks and would rather hand waive any type of debate with an actual opponent based on hard data provided by govt agencies by labeling his diatribes (read: NPT analysis) as "lectures" with numerous disclaimers.

Well, we all knew Mackey was poor form before, but now it has been proven once again.

Mackey has once again diminished his credibility. He will never step up to the plate for debate with actual opponents and would rather "lecture" others based on "the easy way out".

It is clear why Mackey spends almost every one of his days obsessed with people he thinks are "crackpots".... while refusing to debate such "crackpots". Seems Mackey is not confident enough to debate what he feels are "crackpots", but certainly respects them enough to do a 3 part video series and post about them daily on the GL site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 13 2009, 11:03 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Mackey is a buffoon.

OF COURSE he chooses "NPT" as his public debut!

The ultimate straw man.

The easy target.

The cop-out.

The buffoon duh-bunking buffoonery.

How poetic.

He won't touch our work and if he does you better believe he won't do it when we're present to reply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 13 2009, 11:16 PM
Post #12


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Mar 13 2009, 08:03 PM) *
OF COURSE he chooses "NPT" as his public debut!


Yes, and anyone who thinks that NPT or "concrete cores" or "missiles hit the pentagon" or any number of bull sh*t theories THAT HAVE NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THEM are not damaging to the truth movement needs to wake the hell up. This is precisely why these disinformation conspiracy theories are out there. ALL the evidence gets lumped together. "WELL, if they believe THAT BS, nothing they say can be true." Never mind that most of us DO NOT BELIEVE IT and, not only that, argue against "believing" anything.

But when you have data from an FDR that makes no sense and multiple on-site, on-camera eye witnesses who corroborate one another's observations -- which are irreconcilable with the events proclaimed -- that isn't hypothetical or theoretical. One can argue endlessly about what it all "means" but one can NOT argue that it exists and that it is important BECAUSE it exists.

You'll never see people of Mackey's ilk commenting on the real evidence because they don't dare. They know damn well they can't explain it. Government agencies such as the FBI and the NTSB who are responsible for the chain of custody of the FDR data, for example, won't comment -- so you know damn well he won't. He can't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Mar 14 2009, 12:09 AM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Sorry I couldn't resist!
tongue.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 14 2009, 07:05 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (Turbofan @ Mar 14 2009, 12:12 AM) *
I'll get to him and Ron tomorrow. Ron wanted us to point out errors in Mackey's position...well,
the graph he drew is not based on FDR data (as shown above) as you have pointed out numerous
times in the past. Big mistake Ryan!

If Ron is sincere in his challenge, then he will drop Mackey like yesterday's news. We'll see what
happens once I (we) point out the above error.

Do you think Ron will accept a radio debate after casting some doubt on his "shining star"?



In other words, you are unable to point out any errors made by Ryan Mackey.

Permit me to restate the views I expressed to Rob in a private e-mail:

Ryan Mackey is a working scientist, one who is respected by his peers. Snake oil peddlers simply can't comprehend the purpose of his lecture, which is to describe the methods of serious researchers. By contrast, charlatans start with absurd fabrications, the product of political agendas, then alter data, ignore inconvenient evidence, and distort the facts in a desperate attempt to make it float. You have seen the first third of a presentation explaining how scientists and engineers model complex events. We began with a claim advanced by no-planers because it appeals to physics--badly understood physics, to be sure. When fantasists stop spouting empty rhetoric about the NWO, evil Zionists, and Halliburton's plan to conquer the world, they are forced to make concrete assertions. Those assertions ALWAYS turn out to be nonsense. Mackey suggests methods for criticizing his conclusions. Will any of you accept his challenge?

As I stated, events have caught up with the fantasy movement. Your imaginary conspiracy was always mathematically impossible, but the passage of time revealed how ridiculous your articles of faith were. Bush and Cheney are now private citizens, not dictators. A new president promises to undo all significant aspects of Bush’s foreign policy. No pipelines are being built; Russia and China inked the sweetheart oil contracts with the Iraqi government. Absolutely nothing worked out in accordance with your mythology.

Can you adjust your thinking to reflect reality? Why is a baseless fantasy so important that you are willing to humiliate yourself for it? Face it, after all the shouting, you are left with nothing but your manifest inability to do the relevant math, your incompetence at interpreting flight data, and your utter helplessness in the face of overwhelming physical evidence. Where do you go from here? When will you break the biggest story in the history of journalism? What prevents you from taking it to a real news outlet?

Rob's proxies were utterly demolished on the **** (it's fascinating that my words are automatically altered to reflect a dishonest view). What can you add to their dismal performance?

This post has been edited by RonWieck: Mar 14 2009, 07:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 14 2009, 07:37 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,744
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 14 2009, 07:05 PM) *
In other words, you are unable to point out any errors made by Ryan Mackey.


In other words, you are unable to browse our forum, nor have the ability to use the search feature... before engaging your fingers...

Ryan Mackey, Nasa Scientist Proved Incorrect, or lying if he won't concede
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14765

Ryan Mackey Wrong Again
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16002

QUOTE
Permit me to restate the views I expressed to Rob in a private e-mail:


Actually Ron, you edited in quite a bit from your original. Here is Ron's original email...


QUOTE
From: Ronald Wieck <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Cc: rmackey1138@earthlink.net
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2009, 5:10 PM

Rob,



Ryan Mackey is a working scientist, one who is respected by his peers. You simply can’t comprehend the purpose of his lecture, which was to describe the methods of serious researchers. By contrast, you started with an absurd fabrication, the product of a political agenda, and you alter data, ignore inconvenient evidence, and distort the facts in a desperate attempt to make it float.



As I stated, events have caught up with the fantasy movement. Your imaginary conspiracy was always mathematically impossible, but the passage of time revealed how ridiculous your articles of faith were. Bush and Cheney are now private citizens, not dictators. A new president promises to undo all significant aspects of Bush’s foreign policy. No pipelines are being built; Russia and China inked the sweetheart oil contracts with the Iraqi government. Absolutely nothing worked out according to your mythology.



Can you adjust your thinking to reflect reality? Why is your nonsensical fantasy so important that you are willing to humiliate yourself for it? Face it—after all the shouting, you are left with nothing but your manifest inability to do the relevant math and your incompetence at interpreting flight data. Where do you go from here?



Ron



And allow me to post my rebuttal...


QUOTE
RE: Ryan Mackey - "There Is Nothing To Debate"Saturday, March 14, 2009 6:51 PM
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
View contact detailsTo: "Ronald Wieck" <pomeroo@verizon.net>
Cc: rmackey1138@earthlink.net

For someone so "incompetent" at interpreting flight data, it sure attacts alot of peers who fly daily for almost every major airline and are current and qualified by the FAA, who can also be verified at faa.gov.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

Keep an eye on it as we have another update coming.

If you feel we dont know how to interpret flight data based on what your anonymous "experts" have told you,, it looks like its the train for you. Your "experts" cant even be verfied at faa.gov, let alone have the knowledge to interpret flight data. You already admit you havent a clue.

As for the "math", please download and learn... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15930

Anytime you wish to have a debate on real topics, regarding real data, with real professionals who can be verfied, you know where to find us. We'll then show you who knows how to actually interpret the data. Until then, i guess you can keep lecturing on about topics you think are important, such at NPT, and remain in denial regarding interpretation of data offered by your experts who cant even be verified as such.

Enjoy your weekend... :-)




QUOTE
Rob's proxies were utterly demolished on the **** (it's fascinating that my words are automatically altered to reflect a dishonest view). What can you add to their dismal performance?


As usual, denial combined with failure to source.

Which brings up a good point Ron. How are they able to post your work via proxy at J.REF when you been banned there? Why were you banned?

Welcome to the forum Ron, please spend some time browsing and using the search function. Our search function works really well, unlike the J.REF. Also, be sure to review the forum rules.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 14 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #16


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



welcome.gif RonWieck!

If you will spend a little time looking around the forum I think you'll find that we are a very sincere group of people here who are not inclined to easily believe wild conspiracy theories.

Really, give us a chance. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Mar 14 2009, 08:02 PM
Post #17





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



Welcome Ron,

While I disagree with your opening post, I respect the fact that you have arrived here to make it. I suspect that you have never looked into the details of 9/11 but have left it to others to convince yourself that anyone who doubts the official story is a "ridiculous fantasist". You owe it to yourself to look into 9/11 for yourself and this forum is a great place to start. Then you will realise that you have to be a fantasist to believe the official story. Then of course once you realise that you have been duped by the sleight of hand that was 9/11, you will also realise that the mainstream media itself was also part of the illusion and thus what you call a "real news outlet" is never going to break any story.

Nick in NZ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Mar 14 2009, 08:03 PM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Welcome to the forum, Mr. Wieck.

I'll let Rob, Turbofan and others handle the technical presentations and arguments. It is this I'd like to challenge:

QUOTE (RonWieck @ Mar 14 2009, 04:05 PM) *
Ryan Mackey is a working scientist, one who is respected by his peers.

I'm certain he is.

QUOTE
Snake oil peddlers simply can't comprehend the purpose of his lecture, which is to describe the methods of serious researchers.

Very well, but what do ordinary citizens who are not professional scientists, engineers or investigators do when they are confronted with serious anomalies which those who ARE professionally qualified refuse to address? Calling those of us who have undertaken investigations of these events given the resources available to us "snake oil peddlers" is a prejudice right off the boat, now, isn't it?

QUOTE
By contrast, charlatans start with absurd fabrications, the product of political agendas, then alter data, ignore inconvenient evidence, and distort the facts in a desperate attempt to make it float.

You're absolutely right about that. You know, the kind of charlatans who want to launch wars of aggression against sovereign nations for purposes of wealth and empire. Oh, but wait, you're talking about US! You are suggesting that "we" are the "charlatans" who have "political agendas" and that "we" "alter data, ignore inconvenient evidence, and distort the facts in a desperate attempt to make it float." No, I don't think you have that right, Mr. Weick. Most people on this forum were Republicans, voted for Bush, and bought into the "war on terror" snake-oil hook line and sinker. At least they did until they began to look beyond the fairy story told by government officials and parroted by media. In any case, I think your general criticism is wrongly targeted. You might have lobbing that criticism against Colon Powel or the previous administration but I doubt you did.

QUOTE
You have seen the first third of a presentation explaining how scientists and engineers model complex events. We began with a claim advanced by no-planers because it appeals to physics--badly understood physics, to be sure.

The NPT theory is not generally accepted at this forum, I hope you know that. In fact, quite the contrary.

QUOTE
When fantasists stop spouting empty rhetoric

When people stop labeling other people as "fantasists" without having even looked at their evidence ...

QUOTE
about the NWO, evil Zionists, and Halliburton's plan to conquer the world,

!!! Got me on that one. What can I say. There are nuts and kooks apart of every movement. Oh, yes, and if we know anything about intelligence, counterintelligence and so on, we know there is information and disinformation as well. But of course none of that would have anything to do with this situation now would it?

QUOTE
they are forced to make concrete assertions.

Which we have been making all along. But, of course, since you only listen to those who present one side of the story you wouldn't know any of that.

QUOTE
Those assertions ALWAYS turn out to be nonsense.

Really? Always?? ALWAYS??? Very interesting. You've looked at the FDR data obtained from the NTSB and it is "nonsense". Oh, well, on that point we totally agree. Given the damage at the Pentagon it is, indeed, nonsensical. You've heard the presentations of multiple on-camera, on-site eye witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path inconsistent with the physical damage at the Pentagon -- and you are CERTAIN this, too, is nonsense. I can't wait to see how you come to that conclusion.

QUOTE
Mackey suggests methods for criticizing his conclusions. Will any of you accept his challenge?

Yes, I'm quite sure some will. But tell me, Mr. Wieck, what will you and Mr. Mackey do IF your own high standards indicate there is something VERY FISHY about what happened at the Pentagon? Are you, then, going to keep searching until you figure out the facts of the case -- you know, as we've attempted to do -- or are you simply going to dismiss it out of hand?

Rest assured many will be watching.

Oh, by the way, you do know that attempting to cover up a crime is itself a crime, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Mar 14 2009, 08:27 PM
Post #19


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Ron, as you peruse the forum you will find that some people here spend a lot of time debunking the theories that you criticize. In the interest of fairness and free speech, we have allowed discussion of these things, unlike some other forums. In the process of discussion we come up with a depth of research that you will not likely find elsewhere.

Your OP implies that truthers have a pre-ordained agenda. If that is so, that agenda is nothing more than heartfelt concern for our world. Truthers are not kooks. We are people. We are all people, you included. We are people who put people first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonWieck
post Mar 15 2009, 01:20 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 74
Joined: 14-March 09
Member No.: 4,201



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 14 2009, 08:03 PM) *
Welcome to the forum, Mr. Wieck.

I'll let Rob, Turbofan and others handle the technical presentations and arguments. It is this I'd like to challenge:


They did a very bad job of handling the technical presentations on the forum that can't be named here. They left the distinct impression that they had no idea of what they were saying.

QUOTE
I'm certain he is.

Very well, but what do ordinary citizens who are not professional scientists, engineers or investigators do when they are confronted with serious anomalies which those who ARE professionally qualified refuse to address? Calling those of us who have undertaken investigations of these events given the resources available to us "snake oil peddlers" is a prejudice right off the boat, now, isn't it?


Over seven years have passed since the attacks of 9/11 and I can't think of a single "anomaly" that hasn't been addressed comprehensively.
QUOTE
You're absolutely right about that. You know, the kind of charlatans who want to launch wars of aggression against sovereign nations for purposes of wealth and empire.


Who are these people? If you refer to Americans, then we can state with certainty that there is no empire and no wealth was acquired. When I was young, leftists assured us that the Vietnam War was being fought to further imperialist goals. Well, the verdict is in on that canard. Most of us are capable of figuring out that the American economy was vastly better in 1965 than it was in 1971. As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up. Roughly the same people tried the same con game in 1991, when they told us that we were fighting Saddam Hussein to gain control over Iraq's oil. Again, some of us noticed that we didn't gain control of Iraq's oil. Forote] the past seven years, we heard fairy tales about gas pipelines in Afghanistan and schemes to take control of Iraq's oilfields. The pipelines are not being built and we most definitely do not control Iraq's oilfields.

QUOTE
Oh, but wait, you're talking about US! You are suggesting that "we" are the "charlatans" who have "political agendas" and that "we" "alter data, ignore inconvenient evidence, and distort the facts in a desperate attempt to make it float." No, I don't think you have that right, Mr. Weick. Most people on this forum were Republicans, voted for Bush, and bought into the "war on terror" snake-oil hook line and sinker. At least they did until they began to look beyond the fairy story told by government officials and parroted by media. In any case, I think your general criticism is wrongly targeted. You might have lobbing that criticism against Colon Powel or the previous administration but I doubt you did.


I don't believe a word of it. Very few, if any, of you were Republicans who voted for Bush. What exposes your deception is the nonsense about the "media." That would be the mainstream media, right? You know, those Bush-lovers at the NY Times, the Washington, Post, the LA Times, the three major networks, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. You're telling me that the people who rabidly opposed everything Bush did helped him to orchestrate the most massive coverup in history. The people who worked 24/7 to undermine his presidency were really in cahoots with the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Good luck with that.
Nobody here "looked beyond" anything. You started from the premise that the U.S. cannot possibly be the victim of an unprovoked attack. You are willing to stand reality on its head to exonerate jihadists who stubbornly keep reminding you that they are proud of their victory.

QUOTE
The NPT theory is not generally accepted at this forum, I hope you know that. In fact, quite the contrary.

When people stop labeling other people as "fantasists" without having even looked at their evidence ...


People I label as fantasists have no evidence. When I hear total frauds raving about an imaginary flyover of the Pentagon, I can only shake my head in wonderment. The witnesses cherry-picked by the Penta-conmen agree on one point: they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon.

QUOTE
!!! Got me on that one. What can I say. There are nuts and kooks apart of every movement. Oh, yes, and if we know anything about intelligence, counterintelligence and so on, we know there is information and disinformation as well. But of course none of that would have anything to do with this situation now would it?


You're right: none of that has any relevance whatever to the issues we are discussing. Wreckage of AA Flight 77 was found at the Pentagon, along with remains of all but five of the passengers and crew. Those remains were identified by DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary. Your imaginary conspiracy swells larger and larger to accommodate all the people who must be lying to keep this convoluted tale from unraveling. Eventually, a rational person must conclude that the liars are the agenda-driven cranks who wave away all the evidence.

QUOTE
Which we have been making all along. But, of course, since you only listen to those who present one side of the story you wouldn't know any of that.


The assertions made by the CIT are baseless fabrications supported by nothing. NOBODY observed a commercial airliner head straight toward the Pentagon and then swoop up at the last second. Imagine one of your comic-book super-villains trying to sell that plan:

"Uh, won't someone NOTICE that the plane pulled up and missed the building?"

"Well, we're hoping that NO ONE will be paying attention."

"But how will we find those people who'll insist that the plane crashed into the building?"

"I know--we'll hire actors!"

"But, not to rain on your parade, won't SOMEONE point out that the plane flew over the building?"

"We'll have to keep our fingers crossed."

Please--this is insanity. I know it and you know it.

QUOTE
Really? Always?? ALWAYS??? Very interesting. You've looked at the FDR data obtained from the NTSB and it is "nonsense". Oh, well, on that point we totally agree. Given the damage at the Pentagon it is, indeed, nonsensical. You've heard the presentations of multiple on-camera, on-site eye witnesses who saw a plane on a flight path inconsistent with the physical damage at the Pentagon -- and you are CERTAIN this, too, is nonsense. I can't wait to see how you come to that conclusion.


Whenever I ask the frauds who peddle this nonsense about survivors of the Titanic, they run away. There is a very good reason why they flee from this e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y inconvenient subject. You see, some of the survivors remembered the ship breaking in half before it sank, while others insisted it went straight down. There was considerable disagreement over the music the band was playing as the lifeboats were being lowered. Many survivors couldn't recall which side of the ship they left from, or what direction they rowed.

So, we have a number of people who recall seeing the plane hit the Pentagon. Most of them give descriptions consistent with the available data. A few describe a flightpath inconsistent with that data. ALL of them agree that the plane hit the building. From this hopelessly flimsy premise, unscrupulous, deluded cranks have attempted to conjure up a fantastic hypothesis that is contradicted by a mountain of physical evidence.

QUOTE
Yes, I'm quite sure some will. But tell me, Mr. Wieck, what will you and Mr. Mackey do IF your own high standards indicate there is something VERY FISHY about what happened at the Pentagon? Are you, then, going to keep searching until you figure out the facts of the case -- you know, as we've attempted to do -- or are you simply going to dismiss it out of hand?


RW: I'm not a scientist, but I can tell you what Mackey would do: he'd publish his calculations for peer review. He would interview his witnesses in accordance with standard journalistic practices. Let me be very specific. When a witness states that he observed the plane hit the Pentagon AND he describes an impossible flightpath, you ask him the following question: WHICH ONE OF YOUR MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE ASSERTIONS ARE YOU PREPARED TO ABANDON? This is something the Penta-conmen will NEVER do. They understand perfectly well that for almost all humans the memory of a plane crashing into a building remains vivid. It trumps the far hazier memory of where the witness was standing.

RW: I must insist that no one here has made an honest effort at research. Nobody has offered an explanation for the abundant physical evidence that doesn't insult the intelligence of the audience.

p: Rest assured many will be watching.

RW: Actually, almost nobody is watching.

p: Oh, by the way, you do know that attempting to cover up a crime is itself a crime, right?

RW: Yes, I know that. Do you know that accusing innocent people of a heinous crime when all available evidence suggests that you're wrong is the behavior of a lynch mob?

RW: Could someone tell me how to use the quote function?

This post has been edited by dMole: Mar 20 2009, 01:51 PM
Reason for edit: Fixed Mr. Wieck's quote tags- he attempted to use more than the forum software allows BTW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th August 2018 - 10:47 PM