• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MM, Let's Discuss NIST

Hey Almond, isnt that the secret ensignia for operation "Stiff Mallard" I alluded to elsewhere. I didn't think the ensignia was declassified yet?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Hey Almond, isnt that the secret ensignia for operation "Stiff Mallard" I alluded to elsewhere. I didn't think the ensignia was declassified yet?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Well now it's not! Thank's a lot TAM, now we'll have to erase the minds of everyone who knows.

What were we talking about again?
 
twinstead said:
All the excellent points brought up to you above, and THIS is all you have?

To me your entire point is a layman's "it doesn't look right to me". The vast majority of real experts on Earth disagree with you. That makes it a tall claim, sir.

You are the sheep because you believe conspiracy sites no questins asked. MAKE YOUR CASE.
Click to expand...

Cough cough..excellent points?

You folks love making the claim that the masses agree with ya just because they are silent.

Without the support of the JREF herd you are nothing.

Just a club of back slappers.

MM
 
106 posts now for MM. 0 facts, 0 evidence. Par for the course for CT's.
 
The Almond said:
So rather than address Gravy's points, you're criticizing his avatar? Why?

This is another baseless attack against Gravy.
Click to expand...

Not an attack..an observation.

Mark didn't respond to my point. He responded to his point which was just more ego gratification.

I also think he can reply for himself without people like yourself toadying up a response.

I guess if you need the merit points than more power to you.

MM
 
MM:

Do you have anything else to say besides whining about the JREFers?

TAM
 
R.Mackey said:
It wasn't. That was a counterpoint to your assertion that the NIST model was "too coarse."

As for your claim that NIST used "excessive assumptive data," I simply asked you to show where they did that. You haven't. Please proceed.
Click to expand...

There is no rebuttal to dogma.

People convinced in their beliefs open no doors to doubt.

It's not a matter of providing evidence. I see little indication that anyone here cares about proof or reasonable doubt.

You can call me names and label my responses all you like but I'm not so dumb as to play the fool's game of trying to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people.

How can you honestly say you want to discuss evidence when all your responses clearly indicate an inability to consider anything other that your current tight-fisted beliefs?

Do you really believe you still retain the individual capacity to change your minds?

I have never encountered such a group of people who were so firmly entrenched in their beliefs and so afraid of conceding little maybes as if they were major points.

No argument is ironclad whether you are on the side of the 9/11 Truth Seekers or the JREF sceptics.

I've yet to see you brilliant folks prove that the possibility of CD at WTC 1,2 & 7 is beyond reasonable doubt.

The firefighters were not experts in phenomenon that never occured before, yet to suit your purposes, you treat them as such.

Controlled demolitions create rapid, symmetrical footprint-like collapses, yet you folks eagerly embrace the conclusion that in the case of WTC7, debris damage and fire amazingly achieved the same result. No hesitation to believe, no doubt it was a normal occurence. The firefighters never said it would happen that way. Not one of the voluminous firefighter quotes even hinted that a collapse of that nature was a possibility. Never happened before but of course you all knew on 9/11, that was the day it would happen..obvious to you all.

The NIST Report. The 10,000 page shock and awe bible. What a pillow to sleep with at night. All those juicy pages of textbook rehash by people beholding to those who finance their budget. People who know any disagreement with White House spin will court ugly repercussions. Look at the crippled 9/11 Commission if you have any doubt about how interested the White House was in a complete and fair investigation.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
And you davidjames are so smart...you don't even have to bother thinking at all any more.

If you folks are so right in your beliefs, why do you evade explaining the valid points about the WTC7 collapse being 'forced'?

Gravy falls back on his firefighter quotes and the rest of you are content to believe what you are told no matter how unlikely.

Just the fact that no one here will entertain 'doubt' is symptomatic of your inability to think as individuals.

As individuals your afraid of the reaction from the rest of the JREF club if you make a minor concession.

And you ask me why engineers are afraid to come forward and challenge the status quo?

You folks don't have enough guts to disagree with each other over the smallest points.

Talk about a herd of sheep.

MM
Click to expand...
I see you avoided my questions and just rambled. I'm not surprised. You have nothing, mm, not a lick of evidence. All you have are the simple (very simple) thoughts in your head. You're going nowhere MM, nowhere. Good luck with your life, and don't reproduce.
 
Miragememories said:
Not an attack..an observation.
Click to expand...
BS. Could we dispense with your "I'm the victim" style revisionism?
Mark didn't respond to my point. He responded to his point which was just more ego gratification.
Click to expand...
Rather, he called you on a particularly poor statement for which you had no evidence.
I also think he can reply for himself without people like yourself toadying up a response.
Click to expand...
I see we're stooping even lower. How do you think you appear to the fence-sitters? Do you think you're acting like a rational adult?
I guess if you need the merit points than more power to you.

MM
Click to expand...
Childish namecalling and baseless accusations.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
There is no rebuttal to dogma.
Click to expand...
Except for facts. How about if you get some?
People convinced in their beliefs open no doors to doubt.
Click to expand...
Oh! Why won't people accept my poorly researched opinion as fact! Woe is me!
It's not a matter of providing evidence. I see little indication that anyone here cares about proof or reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Gee, if only someone could provide reason to doubt...
You can call me names and label my responses all you like but I'm not so dumb as to play the fool's game of trying to have a reasonable discussion with unreasonable people.
Click to expand...
CALL YOU NAMES??? What have you been doing for the last 4 pages of this thread, exactly?
How can you honestly say you want to discuss evidence when all your responses clearly indicate an inability to consider anything other that your current tight-fisted beliefs?
Click to expand...
Oh! Woe is me! No one will listen to me and agree with me! Why can't they just accept my words over rationalism and evidence?
Do you really believe you still retain the individual capacity to change your minds?
Click to expand...
Do you have the capacity to develop a coherent argument?
I have never encountered such a group of people who were so firmly entrenched in their beliefs and so afraid of conceding little maybes as if they were major points.
Click to expand...
So, we should conceed points so that you don't think we're close minded? Thanks, I'll cast your opinion of me to the wayside and consider myself better for it.
No argument is ironclad whether you are on the side of the 9/11 Truth Seekers or the JREF sceptics.
Click to expand...
And yet, some arguments are made based on moronic premises. For instance, the one that NIST made too many assumptions to have a valid model, or the one that they didn't consider controlled demolition.
Controlled demolitions create rapid, symmetrical footprint-like collapses, yet you folks eagerly embrace the conclusion that in the case of WTC7, debris damage and fire amazingly achieved the same result.
Click to expand...
So do space aliens. I demand that you prove to me that space aliens did not bring down WTC7.
The NIST Report. The 10,000 page shock and awe bible. What a pillow to sleep with at night. All those juicy pages of textbook rehash by people beholding to those who finance their budget. People who know any disagreement with White House spin will court ugly repercussions. Look at the crippled 9/11 Commission if you have any doubt about how interested the White House was in a complete and fair investigation.

MM
Click to expand...
To sumarize this thread:
1) MM has no specific, technical criticisms of the NIST report.
2) MM thinks we're all too close-minded to take him at his word. It would be better for him if we just accepted his opinion as fact and didn't ask all these pesky questions regarding evidence and reference.
 
Last edited:
MM I'm sorry. You are disgusting. I can't believe anybody so dogmatic, so steadfast in his beliefs, so willfully ignorant, so ideologically blind, can with a straight face accuse others of the SAME EXACT THING!

You need to go back to whatever hole of a forum you crawled out of before you came here and preach to the choir some more, because obviously you can't handle defending your views with anybody of the opposing viewpoint who is even a little articulate about it.

I'm done. You are accusing people of the most heinous crime ever committed in the US. You are accusing innocent people of mass murder, but you don't even care. To you and your ilk this is some kind of rhetorical exorcise, some kind of woo woo video game. If YOU are the best your 'movement' has to offer then we have nothing to worry about at ALL. You're all a bunch of idiots.

:mad:
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
It's not a matter of providing evidence.
Click to expand...
Just another intellectual coward, I see.

Why is the "Truth Movement" comprised exclusively of intellectual cowards?

Isn't it uncomfortable to live in a coward's skin? Doesn't it itch?
 
The Almond said:
False.
[...]
False
[...]
False
[...]
I certainly hope you can come up with better issues. The ones you have brought up appear to be rehashed conspiracy garbage.
Click to expand...
One thing, Almond, that I found a little unfair is that you did not reference the negations above. You called MM on referencing several times. It would have been better to actually slap him in the face with some pages in the report, which I assume is possible in this case.
Oter than that, I've enjoyed wasting another sunday morning on finding out again how warped the world of conspiracists must actually be.
 
H'ethetheth said:
One thing, Almond, that I found a little unfair is that you did not reference the negations above. You called MM on referencing several times. It would have been better to actually slap him in the face with some pages in the report, which I assume is possible in this case.
Oter than that, I've enjoyed wasting another sunday morning on finding out again how warped the world of conspiracists must actually be.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. The problem was that I asked him for genuine, specific criticisms, and he provided rather paltry generalist ones. For instance:

The NIST Report hangs it's case basically on it's computer model.
Click to expand...

Doesn't really allow me to reference anything. I could point to NCSTAR1-2 and 1-5 which details the specifics of the computer model. But that's not really much better than saying "you're wrong."

Nowhere, however, does NIST state "Our entire thesis is based on this computer model." I'm aware of a few executive summaries which state "The sequences are supported by extensive computer modeling and the evidence held by NIST." (NCSTAR1-6, lxvi) That's a misrepresentation of NIST's conclusion at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

The NIST model failed continued to match the observed visual evidence until NIST used an extreme case scenario with unsubstantiated, speculative data.
Click to expand...

I've asked him repeatedly to point to where NIST states that they were forced to use the extreme case. Thus far, he's blustered and has not produced anything resembling evidence. I honestly don't know where he got this conclusion or what part of the report says it. I can't do anything other than state that NIST began its investigation by reviewing hundreds of videos, thousands of people and interviewing firefighters and first responders. It seems to me that the physical scenario was greatly considered from the beginning of the investigation. NCSTAR1 states, "To increase confidence in the simulation results, NIST used the visual evidence, eyewitness accounts from inside and outside the buildings, laboratory tests involving large fires and the heating of structural componenets, and formal statistical methods to identify influential parameters and quantify the variablility in analysis results." (NIST NCSTAR1, xxxvii)

My point is that it's very clear that MM has never read the NCSTAR, and is rather parroting claims and criticisms he heard from other websites. The focus on UL and on the simulations is very typical of the scholars for truth garbage and David Ray Griffin's claptrap. Therefore, pointing to specific references in the NCSTAR is really pretty worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom