Posted: Nov 14, 2010 10:41 pm
by Miragememories
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!?!?!?"