First of all, I don't believe Dr. Greening accused ALL "JREFers" of being NISTians.
He referred to the "regulars" and I think he feels, and I have to agree, that Gravy is your unofficial leader.
I think we're on the same page about who Greening was referring to. I put "JREFers" in quotes because that term is used almost exclusively in reference to regular anti-9/11-CT members of the CT sub-forum.
My hope is that the individual that resides in us all will wake up in you JREF "regulars" and you will stop acting as if you own the JREF Conspiracy Forum. I'm sorry if it gets boring seeing the familiar but get over it. It happens in the LC Forum as well. You are guests here just like I am. You don't own this forum in spite of how many posts you've accumulated.
Almost to a member, we've been very respectful of the decisions of mods and have accepted the stricter temporary CT-specific rules changes without complaint. I haven't seen any evidence that any member here feels that their membership is anything but conditional.
Any document, including the holy bible is not inviolate.
Duh.
The NIST Report is no exception and if you are comfortable in your belief that it is a solid piece of work, then it shouldn't be necessary to 'dis' everyone who challenges it.
That's not an accurate description of what happens here.
It shouldn't be necessary for people questioning the NIST Report to be experts, engineers, scientists, firefighters etc.
It isn't.
People should be able to raise a question based on a logical point of view alone. If it's faulty logic, you should have no problem 'taking it out'. What have you got to lose meeting people on their terms?
If it can be shown convincingly that there's something that should be changed/removed, no one here would object.
Hiding behind professional rhetoric is just laziness in my opinion.
Who's hiding? What professional rhetoric?
You don't need math and science to defend every point of view.
Duh.
The public wants to talk about 9/11 and they don't want to have to get an engineering degree before their opinions will be listened to.
Their opinions are immaterial. If they have good arguments, they'll be listened to.
Lets face it. Few of you have read that 10,000 page NIST report. Of those that have, how many can honestly say that after wading through all that material they have a crisp knowledge of what they read? Serious flaws, omissions and contradictions can easily be buried in a document that huge and the best amongst you would be unlikely to flag them.
If anyone does find serious flaws, omissions or contradictions, I'm all ears.
Put your egos aside. No one is accusing you of writing the Official Story and you aren't required to defend it even though you believe it. The conclusion can be right even if the work behind it is erroneous.
It's not about ego at all. It's about defending against an effort at baseless historical revisionism.
I admire your belief because it casts a good light where I want a good light to shine.
Don't fault myself and other truth seekers because we don't see it the way you do. Prove us wrong..it's what any responsible caring individual wants. Don't use insults and mockery to do it. You only make fools of yourself in the process.
MM
You seem to be under the impression that insults and mockery are the primary means by which debunkers engage with "truth seekers". The insults and mockery come from frustration--
after (not always chronologically, but always in terms of precedence) multiple detailed and patient demonstrations of why they are wrong fail to make an impression.
