• 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.

Question About the WTC Core Collapse

The Almond said:
Would you care to tell me what NIST's conclusion was?

Jones uses a lot of out-of-context quotations and misrepresentations of the actual report. It depends on your definition of a lie, but I do belive he deliberately trims and edits his quotes to change the meaning of them. That's dishonest, at least.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm not interested in your beliefs, we'll let Wildcat get to the bottom of this one for us. He either lied or he didn't. I'm sure he'd be interested in the source of the accusation. If this is untrue, and represents some sort of attempt to discredit him, that John Albanese character was talking about some sort of civil liberties action and is looking for information like this. This could end up being part of that, you never know. Who's saying he lied about the NIST report Wildcat, where did you read that?
 
scooby said:
Don't worry, I'm not interested in your beliefs, we'll let Wildcat get to the bottom of this one for us. He either lied or he didn't. I'm sure he'd be interested in the source of the accusation. If this is untrue, and represents some sort of attempt to discredit him, that John Albanese character was talking about some sort of civil liberties action and is looking for information like this. This could end up being part of that, you never know. Who's saying he lied about the NIST report Wildcat, where did you read that?
Click to expand...
So, to answer my question, you have no idea what NIST's conclusions were, and you celebrate your ignorance in the matter.
 
scooby said:
Never, it's conclusion tells you all you need to know about its content.
I must say it was news to me that Steve Jones lied about this though - are you sure?
Click to expand...

So if a new investigation was to come to the same conclusion you would ignore it too? I rest My Case.



Edit to add. were Jones lips moving? then he was lying.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that, when scooby makes a claim and is confronted about it, he claims no interest in actually discussing it...

It's almost as if his only purpose here is to thumb his nose at us.
 
Sorry to "bump" this thread... I just wanted to thank you all for the information I requested. Im hoping my son gets into Northeastern Univertisy to become an engineer...then I will be able to stop bothering you guys.

AboveTopSecret.com is stuck recycling their old theories that have been debunked over and over....actually becoming quite a bore. They are still fighting over the Silverstein quote and the Beam that was cut at an angle.
 
scooby said:
But a thin steel rod would represent a vertical column closely enough.
Click to expand...

Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.
 
CHF said:
Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.
Click to expand...

Frantically ignoring the concept of the 'scale model'.
It's real dark ages on here with you lot isn't it?
 
Anyway, where's Wildcat with the source of this libel against Professor Jones? I wasn't joking about the civil liberties case that is being researched and prepared, and I'm very keen to see its successful progress. Absent the source of the libel, I'll be forced to quote Wildcat and this forum.

Interesting times eh? Defamation can be quite serious ...

"As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality."

Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

And if you read this carefully - it looks like the whole JREF forum could be dragged into it - as it encourages libelious comments of this nature - under the banner of 'skepticism'.

Ho ho ho, it just gets better and better...

"Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Defamation-and-Slander-on-the-Internet&id=422889

He could make a killing on here.
Of course nothing might come of it - but it's good to know that if anything does, it's all recorded here for posterity.

Who's saying he lied Wildcat?

Link?
 
Last edited:
scooby said:
Anyway, where's Wildcat with the source of this libel against Professor Jones? I wasn't joking about the civil liberties case that is being researched and prepared, and I'm very keen to see its successful progress. Absent the source of the libel, I'll be forced to quote Wildcat and this forum.

Interesting times eh? Defamation can be quite serious ...

"As social networking sites and internet blogs continue to increase in both popularity and use, the opportunities for defamatory and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Blogs or social networks in which defamatory statements are written or recorded present several potential sources of liability and recovery for the person whose character was defamed. In cases where the defamation is proved, damages are presumed and often enforced with liberality."

Operators of blogs are generally immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not contribute to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party was eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA.

And if you read this carefully - it looks like the whole JREF forum could be dragged into it - as it encourages libelious comments of this nature - under the banner of 'skepticism'.

Ho ho ho, it just gets better and better...

"Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation."

http://ezinearticles.com/?Defamation-and-Slander-on-the-Internet&id=422889

He could make a killing on here.
Of course nothing might come of it - but it's good to know that if anything does, it's all recorded here for posterity.

Who's saying he lied Wildcat?

Link?
Click to expand...
Are you threatening legal action? First you have to prove the liar is not a liar? Since all 9/11 truthers are misleading people telling them it is an inside job or explosives were used, and they can not prove it. Their misleading statement are lies by definition. But then if you have some facts you can try to do what?

So are you threatening legal action for what?
 
CHF said:
Imagine the outrage from twoofers if NIST were to compare the WTC towers to pieces of scrap metal and household items.
Click to expand...
They complain loudly enough about the "core is a hollow tube" statement (paraphrased). I guess they were expecting chicken wire.
 
beachnut said:
Are you threatening legal action? First you have to prove the liar is not a liar? Since all 9/11 truthers are misleading people telling them it is an inside job or explosives were used, and they can not prove it. Their misleading statement are lies by definition. But then if you have some facts you can try to do what?

So are you threatening legal action for what?
Click to expand...

Proving that Prof Steve Jones has not misquoted NIST will be a trivial matter to demonstrate.

No I'm not threatening legal action - that will be up to Prof Jones or possibly John Albanese if it is considered part of a broader smear campaign. All I'm after is the source of this claim that Wildcat made about Prof Jones lying and misquoting NIST. You'd think he would provide it as he seems so certain and he doesn't exactly mince his words, so where did he get it from ...

WildCat said:
Did it ever occur to you to check the NIST report for yourself to see if Jones is telling the truth? If you did, you'd discover that Jones is a liar, a charlatan, and a profiteer taking advantage of the feeble-minded.
Click to expand...

I mean, did it ever occur to Wildcat that all anybody has to do is check the NIST report themselves to ascertain the truth of these serious accusations? It's not exactly rocket science - read the bit in double quotes that Prof Jones quotes from the NIST report, and then read the NIST report. Pick a large number, double it. Be as skeptical as you like but get your cheque book out and pay.

Also, has it occurred to you, that this JREF forum is no tin-pot blog? It seems to be a very well run and well financed operation which means one thing - ch-ching - $$$$$$$.

I would love to be sitting in court opposite somebody with deep pockets making false claims like this about me, or liable for encouraging them and hosting them. But let the lawyers work it out.

So where did he get it from?

And by the way, is it also your contention that Professor Jones is a liar and has misquoted NIST in his work?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom