NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Miragememories]

Incorrect. Gravy is one of many here who have done a huge amount of research and are well versed in all areas of the 9/11 attacks. That does not make him anyones "leader", but think what you will.

TAM

To quote Dr. Greening;

First of all I will drop the NIST-bashing. I can see its too hot.
I wouldn't want to burn the GRAVY.

And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for
more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of
re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start,
but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may
satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this
world, but not me.

To Gravy and others who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you
could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with
maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm?

Gravy:
Degree in English? Oh, I didn’t realize that. I enjoy discussing English
literature. It's all about archetypes isn't it? - my wife has an English
degree. But I was assuming you had some technical training and/or
experience...... " end quotes from Dr. Greening.

What I said was; "..I think he feels, and I have to agree, that Gravy is your unofficial leader."

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

To quote Dr. Greening;

First of all I will drop the NIST-bashing. I can see its too hot.
I wouldn't want to burn the GRAVY.

And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for
more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of
re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start,
but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may
satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this
world, but not me.

To Gravy and others who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you
could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with
maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm?

Gravy:
Degree in English? Oh, I didn’t realize that. I enjoy discussing English
literature. It's all about archetypes isn't it? - my wife has an English
degree. But I was assuming you had some technical training and/or
experience...... " end quotes from Dr. Greening.

What I said was; "..I think he feels, and I have to agree, that Gravy is your unofficial leader."

MM

think what you will...he is not my leader, but I rely on him for his wealth of 9/11 knowledge.

TAM

 

[Miragememories]

If lying is not an acceptable means of achieving goals, why do you allow people in the truth movement to do so without criticism? There have been several posters here who have used language and insults much stronger than "idiot", but supporters of the truth movement on this forum are silent in what can appear to be tacit support of these people.

Although people have accused several members of this forum of acting as a group, it has been demonstrated that unacceptable behavior is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated, even if those exhibiting that behavior "agree" with claims many on this forum support.

If you truly wish to diminish the amount of lying and invective, you may want to consider admonishing anyone displaying this behavior, not just those with opposing views.

Excuse me, but I have "called out" people when I know they are stating a falsehood.

I don't like lies from anyone, even if well intentioned and supporting my point of view.

I RARELY see any regular member here chastise another member for over zealousness, or making unproven accusations against a truther..which is in effect a lie.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So you agree the truthers have zero facts, that is good you finally see some light.

I do not tell lies about 9/11, but I understand how ignorant people will ignore knowledge, logic, facts and evidence, they have no capability to use knowledge, logic and reason to realize what they are and what true evidence means. So how do we make ignorant people use facts instead of lies? How do we cure the truthers and help them use their mind in a logical way with facts and cure their ignorance on 9/11?

Oh please!

Once you start with those absolute statements you so much love to use, you disqualify yourself as a reasonable human being and not worth any further dialogue!

Zero facts!

And people wonder why I'm less than civil all the time.

MM

 

[beachnut]

To quote Dr. Greening;

First of all I will drop the NIST-bashing. I can see its too hot.
I wouldn't want to burn the GRAVY.

And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for
more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of
re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start,
but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may
satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this
world, but not me.

To Gravy and others who like the NIST Report - great! Then perhaps you
could explain how NIST's collapse initiation mechanism works with
maximum pre-collapse downward displacements of only 33 cm?

Gravy:
Degree in English? Oh, I didn’t realize that. I enjoy discussing English
literature. It's all about archetypes isn't it? - my wife has an English
degree. But I was assuming you had some technical training and/or
experience...... " end quotes from Dr. Greening.

What I said was; "..I think he feels, and I have to agree, that Gravy is your unofficial leader."

MM

If you had as much research and knowledge on 9/11 as Gravy then you could debunk yourself. But then without facts truthers need no real debunking but to alert other people of the truther lies on 9/11.

Why have I not found a single fact from the truthers to support their theories on 9/11?

Greening was actually bashing Gravy for not being an engineer/scientist; kind of like someone bashing Lincoln for not going to college. Greening was demeaning and lacks the capabilities to work with others and said things that were not true about others (your posts highlight those lies).

Fess up! Everyone who has stopped researching or will not accept new ideas about 9/11 speak up. Who has stopped? I saw some new ideas today! Shallow thinking is displayed by truthers, it was sad to see Greening be shallow in his acceptance to discuss things with lay people and others. Greening, as you are pointing out, attacked others with veiled statements and acted as if he was a superior intellectual, above all.

I have learned more by you posting the biased quotes from Greening, about Greening, than I did during his posts. Thanks

Zero facts to support their theories on 9/11 CTs, that is what the 9/11 truth movement has. If I am wrong please start a list. I await with NISTonian baited breath.

This is related to the petition of NIST due to Greening obsession with NIST etc. and the fact the petition authors could just ask these question to NIST and not petition. As could Greening send in his problems with NIST. (i predict Hy...)

 

[HyJinX]

Can we PLEASE, for the love of PETE, move this discussion to another part of this forum. This discussion has nothing, NOTHING, to do with the topic of the thread. It's an amalgamate of thoughts having nothing to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything that closely resembles such. If you want to have a "heart to heart" chit-chat on the Do's and Don't of forum political correctness...take it somewhere else. This has now reached a very high level of complete nonsense.

Thanks.

 

[Miragememories]

1.The Enigma thing - I don't recall it, or if I was even online at the time. You may be right, I do not know. There is no doubt that no matter what forum you go on, there tends to be a "regular" group, with a "regular" pov, and those who believe it or choose not to oppose it, likely get much less grief. It is not the most neutral and fair of things, but it exists everywhere.

2. I have gone outside the cocoon, and I'll admit it was much harder, but I stood my ground. What made me leave (I believe it was DU) was the fact that no matter how sensible and logical my arguements were, I could not sway anyone...this occured before I changed my purpose from convincing my opponents, to convincing the audience.

TAM

Fair enough.

If you want a bigger audience, and I presume you mean visitors, I suggest you hang out at LC.

I promise not to abuse you.

MM

 

[T.A.M.]

I prefer to lurk at LC, as I can then not be banned for opposing the LC story...sound familiar...except we dont ban for such things here.

Besides, with the likes Jackchit and Roxdog over there, I have no desire to discuss anything.

Thanks for the invite and good intentions though.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Can we PLEASE, for the love of PETE, move this discussion to another part of this forum. This discussion has nothing, NOTHING, to do with the topic of the thread. It's an amalgamate of thoughts having nothing to do with the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything that closely resembles such. If you want to have a "heart to heart" chit-chat on the Do's and Don't of forum political correctness...take it somewhere else. This has now reached a very high level of complete nonsense.

Thanks.

I agree, and apologize for the severe derail...onward with the OP. God knows you have to love PETE...lol

TAM

 

[Gravy]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

Boy, did you ever pick a bad example. They put a stopwatch on the collapse of the south tower and arrived at the ten second figure by not including the beginning of the collapse. Honest mistake, I'm sure.

 

[beachnut]

Gravy, why did Greening attack you? Why does MM mention this? Is MM trying to make veiled attack on Gravy by reposting Greenings' biased quotes over and over? Does MM understand each time he reposts Greenings' veiled attacks on Gravy it becomes more and more pronounced that Greening was attacking Gravy and not the facts?

Why would anyone think Gravy is a leader for 9/11 facts and such?

Could it be his ability to think on his feet and use facts about 9/11?

Is it his ability to ask the right questions and help answer them? (try that Dylan; and the petition guys could try the same)

Is it his ability to organize information and present information on a subject most have only a shallow ability in?

Is it because he never backs up this statements with few examples, but many?

Could it be his ability to learn more and not stop researching and not even attack those who accuse him of not doing continuous research?

Could it be how polite he is too engineers when they make stupid statement and talk more like lay people than lay people do; or use to much jargon for anyone to stand?

Why would some mistake someone like Gravy as a leader? Does Gravy jump up to the board and show us the solution?

Is it Gravies ability to let others step in and help with the solution?

Why would anyone mistake Gravy for a leader?

Could it be his ability to adapt to his audience and explain things?

Is it all the work he has done on 9/11 research? I just plain hard work and research enough to be a leader, formal or informal?

Why?

Responses are not required or requested; but welcome.

 

[Gravy]

If you had as much research and knowledge on 9/11 as Gravy then you could debunk yourself.

This is true. I debunk myself daily. Here's how I do it:

1) I believe that something is true.
2) I look up the facts about that thing.
3) I find out that my initial belief was wrong.

I try to run through this process before posting about 9/11 issues. I don't always succeed, but at least I try.

Learning is fun!

 

[Hyperviolet]

Boy, did you ever pick a bad example. They put a stopwatch on the collapse of the south tower and arrived at the ten second figure by not including the beginning of the collapse. Honest mistake, I'm sure.

Correct me if i am wrong here...

Didn't the NIST report give the 10 seconds figure, or something close to that?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

MM note that nobody would report Enigma to the mods for that. . .

Does that include you?

Correct me if i am wrong here...

Didn't the NIST report give the 10 seconds figure, or something close to that?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (Question #6)

 

[Hyperviolet]

So if NIST approximate 9 seconds for the South Tower... what exactly is misleading with Loose Changes approximate of 10 seconds? They are giving a higher estimate than the NIST report.

Am i missing something here?

EDIT: Nevermind lol

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

MM note that nobody would report Enigma to the mods for that, but any truther transgression would be pounced on. I believe it is very much a pack mentality.

The hell are you talking about? How can you possibly pretend to know who did, or did not report any given post? Granted, sometimes people will say if they reported a post; when I do so it is with the intent of educating the person being reported; but it is hardly the norm.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, why did Greening attack you?

I don't feel attacked by Greening at all, and I hope he returns for discussion without the drama. MirageMemories, on the other hand, has repeatedly lashed out at me in desperation. The ignore feature is handy for people who get that way.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh please!

Once you start with those absolute statements you so much love to use, you disqualify yourself as a reasonable human being and not worth any further dialogue!

Zero facts!

And people wonder why I'm less than civil all the time.

MM

Then put him on ignore. Making a post like the above does not contribute to the efforts of promoting civility.

 

[stateofgrace]

All I can say is pick your fights.

You can't respond to every jerk out there.

I appreciate what you are saying.

I know what you face out there.

It's the whole world man! Keep that in mind. The text you are arguing with could be some doped up kid who won't have any recollection of the event in a few hours.

Were not all fools though.

Ignore the idiots and engage those that are thoughtful and honestly seem to give a damn.

I don't see the 9/11 controversy as a game. I have children and I worry about their future when I am gone.

I know I piss you people off but I'm sincere about my beliefs.

If you don't like that well I'm sorry but I'm not here to win a popularity contest.

I'm honest, I don't knowingly lie, and believe it or not I am willing to change my mind, but not without significant deliberation.

MM

Pick your fights? What are you talking about? I did not pick a fight with anybody, I have seen and continued to see, conspiracy upon conspiracy about 911. They range from the almost plausible to down right absurd. It appears you do not appreciate what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is you will not condemn irresponsible theories; you will not condemn anybody who supports the truth movement, irrespective of how outrageous their theories are, irrespective of how outrageous they are in demonising their critics. You prefer to stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody and everybody that agrees with you irrespective of how despicable and disrepective their views and opinions are.

Why do you do this? I will venture an answer, you do this because you are desperate for support, you are so desperate you would prefer to stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the most odious individuals this planet has produced, rather than admit you are wrong. You do not condemn anybody from within the so called truth movement because to so is to alienate yourself from your limited support.

You piss people off, for one simple reason because you will never condemn a single individual, who you know is wrong, because they side with you.You prefer to demonise those that disagree with you, you prefer to paint them as monsters that are blissfully unaware of the worlds problems and fully support the total destruction of this planet.

Don’t believe me? MaGZ reckon missiles hit WTC 7, he is on your side, he is a conspirator, care to tell him on the JREF forum to shut up and stop talking crap?

You knowingly lie because you knowingly do not condemn anybody who supports your theories, you knowingly prefer to allow those that lie to propagate their lies and do nothing to stop it.

This is not a popularity contest, this is a place to get off your high horse and present your facts, stop you self righteous moralistic condemnation of those that don’t agree with you and present your facts, please do so.

 

[Brainache]

I think the best thing to come out of this thread was MM's typo when he called Dr Greening an "ignostic".

It may not strictly apply to Dr Greening, but I'm taking it to mean someone who reaches a state of disbelief through ignoring evidence.

As neologisms go it's a doozy.