The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2101  Postby Miragememories » Nov 14, 2010 10:08 pm

Nicko wrote:More than a few pages have been devoted to why Jones' results are not being accepted, what it would take for them to gain some credibility, what his refusal to do so suggests about his honesty, and why analysis of dust is irrelevant unless the CD scenario was supported by video evidence.

You do not get to ignore the very real problems with Jones' "research" whilst accusing others of hand waving.

The composition of the dust is only relevant if CD is first shown to be credible.


Well anytime you want to present your case against Dr. Jones, bring it on!

Meanwhile you've got the cart and the horse backwards.

CD is very credible with the revelation that every random WTC dust sample shows the pervasive
existence of thermitic material that has absolutely no peaceful reason to be there.

I have little respect for former small town civil engineers who dismiss good arguments while pompously claiming to be so knowledgeable that they can school all comers in what the technical details were behind the collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7!

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2102  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 14, 2010 10:18 pm

You know, I don't disagree with anything you just said, uke2se; certainly not to any substantial degree worth mentioning. I have something to add, though, that gives me a different perspective on the overall condition there. In a nutshell, it's that the kneejerks have become so reflexive and ingrained there's no longer the ability (I mean ability versus desire) to discern a legitimate issue from the same-old same-old. To be honest, supplementary to that, there aren't that many people there that really have a lot going on, there are a lot of coattail riders who benefit only from the modicum of intelligence needed to discern the 'winning side'.

The net result is the baby is typically thrown out with the bathwater.

I'd be considerably more impressed with the environment if there were less participation in the form of piling on ridicule by those who, through faith alone, find themselves on the correct side of an argument but could not otherwise tell their patootie from a fumarole.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2103  Postby GrahamH » Nov 14, 2010 10:25 pm

Kat Dorman wrote:You know, I don't disagree with anything you just said, uke2se; certainly not to any substantial degree worth mentioning. I have something to add, though, that gives me a different perspective on the overall condition there. In a nutshell, it's that the kneejerks have become so reflexive and ingrained there's no longer the ability (I mean ability versus desire) to discern a legitimate issue from the same-old same-old. To be honest, supplementary to that, there aren't that many people there that really have a lot going on, there are a lot of coattail riders who benefit only from the modicum of intelligence needed to discern the 'winning side'.

The net result is the baby is typically thrown out with the bathwater.

I'd be considerably more impressed with the environment if there were less participation in the form of piling on ridicule by those who, through faith alone, find themselves on the correct side of an argument but could not otherwise tell their patootie from a fumarole.

There is a lot of bathwater sloshing around. Where is the baby?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2104  Postby GrahamH » Nov 14, 2010 10:28 pm

Miragememories wrote:
Nicko wrote:More than a few pages have been devoted to why Jones' results are not being accepted, what it would take for them to gain some credibility, what his refusal to do so suggests about his honesty, and why analysis of dust is irrelevant unless the CD scenario was supported by video evidence.

You do not get to ignore the very real problems with Jones' "research" whilst accusing others of hand waving.

The composition of the dust is only relevant if CD is first shown to be credible.


Well anytime you want to present your case against Dr. Jones, bring it on!

Meanwhile you've got the cart and the horse backwards.

CD is very credible with the revelation that every random WTC dust sample shows the pervasive
existence of thermitic material that has absolutely no peaceful reason to be there.

I have little respect for former small town civil engineers who dismiss good arguments while pompously claiming to be so knowledgeable that they can school all comers in what the technical details were behind the collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7!

MM


Has anyone independent to Jones et al been able to confirm this thermitic material in other samples?
Call me a sceptic, but it would be rather too easy to lace some dust samples to revive a few Truther careers.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2105  Postby Miragememories » Nov 14, 2010 10:41 pm

uke2se wrote:"In defense of JREFers, they have been at this for a long time, devoting an entire forum section to 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is the general conclusion that all ideas have been discussed and debunked ad nauseum, and that most of the remaining 9/11 conspiracy theorists are trolls. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but since I arrived there, the trolling behavior of conspiracy theorists have been noticeable. When it comes to newly arrived 9/11 conspiracy theorists, most of them tend to ask the same old questions, not accepting the answers and resorting very quickly to simple denialism. All this has the effect of drawing out the worst in people. Despite all this, in my view JREF remains the best repository of knowledge for skeptical so called "debunkers".

Econ mention a particular conspiracy theorist, ergo. I don't think he's really worth defending as he has shown that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he attempts to discuss (to the point of getting fundamental grade school level physics wrong) and that he has no interest in learning. That people get on his case isn't surprising to me at all."


As a long time member of the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy subForum (I've been there 3 years longer than uke2se), I can honestly say uke2se has no idea what he is talking about.

JREF is home to one of largest concentrations of Official Conspiracy bigots you will find on the Internet.

Probably 90% of the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy subForum are part of that Borg-like group.

I agree with uke2se that the many subjects surrounding 9/11 have been discussed ad nauseum.

Having said that, I have to say the quality of discussion is totally leveraged in favor of anyone who supports the Official Conspiracy Theory.

I do not know if anyone here is familiar with the works of Dr. Frank Greening, but he was at one time a favored-son at JREF.

His theory on the collapse of the Twin Towers was treated with almost Biblical reverence until his open mind found problems with the NIST findings.

He dared to question common belief and today he is banned from JREF.

Here are a few of his final comments;

Dr. Frank Greening aka Apollo20 at JREF in 2007 wrote:"I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?"


MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2106  Postby Miragememories » Nov 14, 2010 11:04 pm

Nicko wrote:More than a few pages have been devoted to why Jones' results are not being accepted, what it would take for them to gain some credibility, what his refusal to do so suggests about his honesty, and why analysis of dust is irrelevant unless the CD scenario was supported by video evidence.

You do not get to ignore the very real problems with Jones' "research" whilst accusing others of hand waving.

The composition of the dust is only relevant if CD is first shown to be credible.
Miragememories wrote: "Well anytime you want to present your case against Dr. Jones, bring it on!

Meanwhile you've got the cart and the horse backwards.

CD is very credible with the revelation that every random WTC dust sample shows the pervasive existence of thermitic material that has absolutely no peaceful reason to be there.

I have little respect for former small town civil engineers who dismiss good arguments while pompously claiming to be so knowledgeable that they can school all comers in what the technical details were behind the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7!"
GrahamH wrote:"Has anyone independent to Jones et al been able to confirm this thermitic material in other samples?
Call me a sceptic, but it would be rather too easy to lace some dust samples to revive a few Truther careers."


"Revive careers", surely you jest?

But I will address your concerns.

But before I do, please realize that supporting 9/11 Truth is not pleasant. It comes with the knowledge that if we are right in our concerns about 9/11, there is likely to be a very scary truth to be revealed.

Keep that in mind when you wonder why people are so resistant to a full and proper 9/11 investigation.

Physicist, Dr. Steven Jones wrote:"I have heard this argument that somehow perhaps someone somehow 'seeded' these samples with nano-thermite. Well ya folks, it is very difficult to create this stuff. I do not know how to make this stuff. Kevin Ryan, a chemist, is trying to make this nano-thermite but its not easy. We do have descriptions from the Livermore National Laboratory in particular, of how they fabricated this material. But to fabricate it, is not so easy. First of all, the iron oxide grains are uniform and approximately 100 nano-meters across. That is very tiny. Much smaller than a human hair. The aluminum occurs in plates that are about 40 nano-meters across. I have no idea how to make those. This is high tech material and it is embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.

Now, back to the chain of custody. So it is not from collapsing buildings. It did come from the dust of the WTC. As I said, samples were sent separately to Dr. Farrer and myself. These samples all showed the same red/gray material. A separate sample was sent to a scientist, Mark Basile working in New England and he also sees the same active red/gray material. I have to say one thing while I am discussing the efforts by Mark Basile. He was the first one to ignite a red/gra chip and observe the spheres, the tiny iron-rich spheres in the residue after the red/gray chip is ignited. And so I think it is important to give him credit for that observation and we looked in our residues from the red/gray chips and we also found these spheres. I would just like to say that was found independently, and first, by Mark Basile.

I asked all of the collectors as they sent me a portion, to retain a portion of the World Trade Center dust so that when we have this investigation, which we are demanding, that there will samples in the hands of the actual collectors. That the investigators can then obtain, and they will find the red/gray chips in this material, because we have already sampled the other portion."


I think there is absolutely no validity to suggestions that the tested samples are 'faked'.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2107  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:05 pm

Miragememories wrote:...Food for thought, if you still get hungry for thought Mr. [Name]?

MM

I note your discourtesy in posting my name. Also your multiple evasive and abusive comments.

I remain available to discuss either my explanations for the WTC collapses OR to discuss any alternate that you post.

My position and willingness to enter into reasoned discussion was expressed quite clearly in my previous posts. We are at the stage where you should either address my claims OR present your own. This is the brief summary of my claims:
econ41 wrote:...However these are my reasons, briefly stated and with backup available if you wish to progress to reasoned discussion:
  1. I discount the concerns about WTC7 - that is claims that it was demolished - on reasons which are a subset of my reasons for dismissing demolition of the twin towers. For the Twin Towers the technical evidence is that:
    1. There was no need for demolition assistance of the collapses; AND
    2. There was no actual deployment of demolition techniques even though such would have been redundant.
    Those technical aspects fall within a more strategic context which includes two groups of factors:
    1. The logistic and security aspects involved in demolition were so improbable as to be effectively impossible;
    2. The technical requirements could not be achieved without discovery for pre installed devices and claims for post impact installation are ridiculous.
    Those latter two factors apply to WTC7 plus two more at least. The nature of the WTC7 collapse mechanism was hidden and cannot be described with the same assurance of detail as applies to the twin towers.
  2. My interest in WTC collapses is in the question "Was there demolition or not?" I have no real interest in whether NIST was right or not. The NIST explanation for WTC7 collapse is plausible and nothing more than "plausible" is needed. Other plausible explanations may be possible.
  3. The debate about "thermXte" is an amusing sideline which I decline to join in. The argument from my perspective is either a trick to keep endless debate going OR a way to lead to demolition. From my perspective it is backwards. There was no demolition - provable by multiple paths of logic - therefore the questions about thermXte are irrelevant. I have said many times "it does not matter if there was a ten tonne cache of thermXte on site, it wasn't used. Therefore end of debate."
So, in summary, every one of the questions in those areas I describe as "nonsense" has been answered by me and others many times.

Note that I stated "...these are my reasons, briefly stated and with backup available if you wish to progress to reasoned discussion".

The offer of reasoned discussion is on the table and remains open. If you want to improve your understanding of the WTC collapses why not cease the evasions and untruthful editing of my posts, drop the snide personal comments and enter into a reasoned discourse. You could either start by addressing each of my claims under 1a, 1b, 1i and 1ii OR by posting your own explanation of how demolition devices could be installed without being detected OR how demolition devices could be employed to assist the other damage in causing collapse. Another question you may address now - you will have to address it at some stage if we do discuss demolition - is why was demolition employed on WTC1 and WTC2 when it was not necessary.

Plenty of scope for reasoned discussion of alternate viewpoints. At this stage I will not respond to the multiple misrepresentations in your post.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2108  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 14, 2010 11:06 pm

GrahamH wrote:There is a lot of bathwater sloshing around. Where is the baby?

I chuckled, yes. But, in all serious, the baby is quite easy to see if you know what you're looking for. Apparently invisible otherwise.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2109  Postby uke2se » Nov 14, 2010 11:07 pm

Kat Dorman wrote:You know, I don't disagree with anything you just said, uke2se; certainly not to any substantial degree worth mentioning. I have something to add, though, that gives me a different perspective on the overall condition there. In a nutshell, it's that the kneejerks have become so reflexive and ingrained there's no longer the ability (I mean ability versus desire) to discern a legitimate issue from the same-old same-old. To be honest, supplementary to that, there aren't that many people there that really have a lot going on, there are a lot of coattail riders who benefit only from the modicum of intelligence needed to discern the 'winning side'.

The net result is the baby is typically thrown out with the bathwater.

I'd be considerably more impressed with the environment if there were less participation in the form of piling on ridicule by those who, through faith alone, find themselves on the correct side of an argument but could not otherwise tell their patootie from a fumarole.


I would agree, and I would also confess to being part of the pile from time to time. In my time at JREF (not long, barely a year) I haven't seen any babies getting thrown out with the bath water, though. Plenty of water, just no toddlers, sort of speak. That there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction going on is indisputable. My point is just that it's a fairly natural development given the crap that gets brought up there.
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2110  Postby uke2se » Nov 14, 2010 11:12 pm

Miragememories wrote:
Keep that in mind when you wonder why people are so resistant to a full and proper 9/11 investigation.


To be perfectly honest, I don't think a lot of people who oppose 9/11 conspiracy theorists would be adamantly opposed to an investigation. The problem is, as we have seen in this very thread, that the conspiracy theorists can't even define such an investigation. Since you brought it up again, I would ask you the same questions I've listed a few times now:

- Who should conduct the investigation?
- Who should pay for it?
- Under who's authority should it be conducted?
- Who should acquire subpoena power for the investigation?
- How should the results be published?
- If the the conclusion of the investigation was the same as that of NIST and the 9/11 commission, would you accept it?
User avatar
uke2se
 
Posts: 641

Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2111  Postby Miragememories » Nov 14, 2010 11:13 pm

econ41 wrote:
Miragememories wrote:...Food for thought, if you still get hungry for thought Mr. [Name]?

MM

I note your discourtesy in posting my name. Also your multiple evasive and abusive comments.


You provided the link to your webpage so I did not realize it was a discourtesy to use the name that you
publicly provided?

My apology if you wished to remain in hiding.

MM
User avatar
Miragememories
 
Posts: 69
Age: 71
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2112  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:14 pm

uke2se wrote:...Econ mention a particular conspiracy theorist, ergo. I don't think he's really worth defending as he has shown that he doesn't know anything about the subjects he attempts to discuss (to the point of getting fundamental grade school level physics wrong) and that he has no interest in learning. That people get on his case isn't surprising to me at all.
Fully understood there uke2se.

The point of principle I was standing on is that, no matter how discredited a "truther" person may be in general, if that person makes a genuine request two things should apply (by my standards):
  1. that genuine request warrants an answer which I or persons of similar viewpoint to me may decide to present. I have done so several times with that particular "truther". There is no obligation to respond on others who do not agree with my position; HOWEVER
  2. Those debunkers who disagree with the "truthers" general attitude and conduct should not ridicule or untruthfully dismiss the genuine request simply because a "truther" made that request. Don't lower yourself to their standards is sort of the theme allowing that not all truthers are untruthful.
.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2113  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:15 pm

Miragememories wrote:
econ41 wrote:
Miragememories wrote:...Food for thought, if you still get hungry for thought Mr. [Name]?

MM

I note your discourtesy in posting my name. Also your multiple evasive and abusive comments.


You provided the link to your webpage so I did not realize it was a discourtesy to use the name that you
publicly provided?

My apology if you wished to remain in hiding.

MM

Accepted. Thank you.

The "anonymity" of these forums is easily pierced. :thumbup:
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2114  Postby Nicko » Nov 14, 2010 11:16 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Kat Dorman wrote: The net result is the baby is typically thrown out with the bathwater.

There is a lot of bathwater sloshing around. Where is the baby?

The baby has been thrown out and the bathwater kept.
Last edited by Nicko on Nov 14, 2010 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8641
Age: 45
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2115  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 14, 2010 11:18 pm

Miragememories wrote:I do not know if anyone here is familiar with the works of Dr. Frank Greening, but he was at one time a favored-son at JREF.

His theory on the collapse of the Twin Towers was treated with almost Biblical reverence until his open mind found problems with the NIST findings.

He dared to question common belief and today he is banned from JREF.

I know Dr. Greening and admire his work a great deal. I was there when he made his first appearance and had the advantage of knowing who Apollo20 was from the beginning. Not that it would've mattered in my reception of his arguments, it's the message not the messenger. I dare say exactly the opposite was true of his experience there. No cred until identity known, then lost again for parting with the company line on certain issues. In fact, he only regained a measure of credibility 'posthumously' after banning, when his words were no longer echoing off the halls.

To be fair, he was banned because of a run-in with Medusa, one of the Gorgons.

I think it's a measure of interest that he's been reviled by both sides. Try posting something by him on 911 blogger. Thankfully for him, I believe he's moved on and reclaimed his time outside of this messy arena. The subject itself, however, has suffered for his inattention.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2116  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:28 pm

uke2se wrote:...The problem is, as we have seen in this very thread, that the conspiracy theorists can't even define such an investigation....

My opinion is similar. It is rare to see a "truther" specify what needs reinvestigation. The claims are almost always stated in the "global" form of a "full investigation".

I tend to focus on WTC collapse and the demolition question and that is a good example to illustrate the second biggest problem with any further investigation. That problem is "will they ever be satisfied" and, for a large portion of truthers we see on the Internet I suspect that the answer is "No." The case for "no demoliton" at WTC is as strongly established as any forensic case is ever likely to be established. Yet a significant part of the truth movement - the part that is vocal on the internet - still will not drop the demolition claims.

So would that group ever accept the findings of any investigation if those findings did not find what the truthers want it to find?

Given that any further investigation would be a political response the time must come to cut your losses. You will never satisfy everybody. And that particularly applies to the crowd that want the sky to be green. It ain't and it will remain blue. My view is that we are now at the time to cut the losses. There will be no big public announcement. I think that the US Government has already taken that decision, probably some years back.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2117  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:38 pm

Kat Dorman wrote:
Miragememories wrote:I do not know if anyone here is familiar with the works of Dr. Frank Greening, but he was at one time a favored-son at JREF.

His theory on the collapse of the Twin Towers was treated with almost Biblical reverence until his open mind found problems with the NIST findings.....

I know Dr. Greening and admire his work a great deal....
Greening is probably unique in that he got trapped in "no man's land". And it leads to part of the reasons I usually will not discuss whether NIST is right or not.

There are many persons posting who rely on authorities such as NIST because they lack either the abililty or the confidence in the ability to work things out for themselves. Then so many discussions purporting to be discussing "demolition or not" end up discussing "was NIST's explanation right?"

I wrote recently (it could even be here :nono: :scratch: ) in the context of the obsession with "peer reviewed papers" something to the effect of "the test of a claim is 'Is it right?' NOT 'Is it published in a peer reviewed paper'?"
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2118  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 14, 2010 11:44 pm

uke2se wrote:I haven't seen any babies getting thrown out with the bath water, though.

I'll give you one recent example. You may not have been exposed to the reception surrounding femr2's video measurements, particularly the tempest in a teapot over the validity and usefulness of the measurements. This is a non-issue, technically speaking. Those measurements are ****ing gold, if you'll pardon my french. Fully 95% of the technical criticism (and nearly 100% of tfk's) is completely off base.

You can take my word for it or not. But you ought to be able to see it for yourself if you go take a peek at the thread (if you can stand to), and work it through for yourself. Maybe I have a bit of an advantage since I've coded several different applications to do essentially the same thing, and am less susceptible to being bogged down in bullshit, which is the major content of the thread (excluding femr2's lengthy and repetitive explanations, which are generally correct but not always so precise linguistically). femr2 uses an off-the-shelf commercial package and, frankly, his results are better than mine. I'm pretty sure I can acquire some targets that SynthEyes can't, but mostly my option not to use SynthEyes is just old-school resistance. It's very good with most targets and a hundred times easier than my process.

Despite the differences we get the same results, where we have compared, to within a rat's ass. He knows what he's doing. The entire freightload of JREFers I've seen, with a few rare exceptions (three I can think of), are utterly clueless. That's like, dozens of regulars. It's a spectacle. All because he's a truther, for chrissakes! If Mackey did it, people would be smothering his posterior with kisses. For real.

Instead of acknowledging his grace in face of constant insulting remarks from people who wouldn't know a good displacement measurement if it bit them on the ass, he's perceived as evasive. He does have a roundabout manner which you can either live with or ignore, and he does lean towards some artificial assistance, but he's not responsible for the merry-go-round happening there.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2119  Postby econ41 » Nov 14, 2010 11:53 pm

Kat Dorman wrote:...he's perceived as evasive....

IMO it is a deliberate strategy of not admitting where he is going (OR where he could go to give benefit of doubt)

I challenged him on it then declared cease fire till he gets near claiming demolition.
Last edited by econ41 on Nov 15, 2010 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1286
Age: 80
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

#2120  Postby Kat Dorman » Nov 14, 2010 11:59 pm

econ41 wrote:There are many persons posting who rely on authorities such as NIST because they lack either the abililty or the confidence in the ability to work things out for themselves. Then so many discussions purporting to be discussing "demolition or not" end up discussing "was NIST's explanation right?"

I wrote recently (it could even be here :nono: :scratch: ) in the context of the obsession with "peer reviewed papers" something to the effect of "the test of a claim is 'Is it right?' NOT 'Is it published in a peer reviewed paper'?"

Well said.

I have no use for the ideological divide. By circumstance, my arguments are preponderously with CTers. For the same reason, my collaborations are mostly with CTers. They're the ones willing to put in some legwork because they think there's something at the end of the tunnel besides academic curiousity. They're not settlers. Turns out some of them have excellent skillsets and a meticulous sense of process and have, as a result, discovered some very interesting academic things. Who would've guessed?

They're people, not subhuman cretins. Well, some of them are cretins, but that's true of just about any demographic and seems to be more the rule than exception with the debunker demographic. You are not subhuman because you're a CTer, you're not even crazy. You may well be misinformed, or be led more by your gut than your head, but no more crazy than being a devotee of any number of popular religions. You may even be right about some things.
Kat Dorman
 
Posts: 1065

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests