My First Ever Banning

[CurtC]

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree that there isn't a fear of honest debate.

I think in their paranoid world view, it is impossible to have seen their evidence and then honestly still think it was really an act of Muslim terrorists. Therefore anyone who defends the official story is not debating honestly, but just stirring up trouble for whatever reason.

How do u know it was 3 years? I take it that you got some sort of notification?

I too was suspended for three years, and I can't recall exactly how I found out. I think it was sent to me in an email message. I don't recall being even able to read the boards while suspended (until I anonymized myself be deleting their cookies). But this was on the old board last year that eventually imploded.

 

[Calcas]

I too was suspended for three years, and I can't recall exactly how I found out. I think it was sent to me in an email message. I don't recall being even able to read the boards while suspended (until I anonymized myself be deleting their cookies). But this was on the old board last year that eventually imploded.

I agree. I seem to remember getting banned for 3 years also on the old board just before it blew up. I believe every time I tried to sign on it said something to the effect that I was suspended until some date in 2009.

I don't think they do that on the new board...you just get axed.

 

[Miragememories]

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you give an example of a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" that would warrant such treatment. I'll be highly surprised if you can come up with one that seems reasonable for Architect, and absolutely shocked if it's not mere speculation, but actually supported by evidence.

Well I'd hate to surprise or shock you RM.

Obviously you feel I'm ignoring your NIST defence.

Here's something more to your liking;

Some basic factual information extracted from the NIST report;

WTC1 (North Tower) structural and insulation damage after 767 impact;
Boeing 767 targets 95th floor 'lighter core' dead center.

35 of 240 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged. 15%
6 of 47 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged. 13%
43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors

WTC2 (South Tower) structural and insulation damage after 767 impact;
Boeing 767 targets 80th floor right corner partially impacting heavier core.

33 of 240 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged. 14%
10 of 47 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged. 21%
39 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors

Prior to the final NIST report, MIT professor Thomas Eager wrote in a major scientific journal that the effects of the Boeing 767 crashes would have been insignificant, because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."

In WTC2 (South Tower), NIST estimates that 10 core columns were severed. This is not a logical expectation for a number of reasons;

The WTC2 (South Tower) 80th floor (impact zone) core columns were thicker as the lower floors had to support greater upper building load, compared to the WTC1(North Tower) 95th floor (impact zone). Thus the WTC2 core columns should have been more difficult to sever.

The WTC2 (South Tower), was struck near the right corner, and NIST admits it's right engine exited the building without significant obstruction.

In reality, only the planes left wing and engine would have been able to do any core damage. Having been largely destroyed breaking through the perimeter wall, the wing could not have done much damage to the core leaving only the single engine. NIST claims that an engine would severe one column at most.

NIST determines greater damage to WTC2 (South Tower) even though they figured it's heavier core was only impacted by one engine and wing debris. In spite of the fact that fewer core columns were in the WTC2 (South Tower) flight path, and in spite of their greater strength and weight, NIST accepted a severing of 10 WTC2 core columns and only 6 in WTC1 (North Tower) which was struck dead center and had weaker and lighter core columns.

Apparently NIST severed the other 9 columns via computer simulations using the most severe case scenario.

I would have mentioned this stuff before but I got bogged down in so much NIST trivia.

I know this is off this thread topic but have a meeting in a moment and I don't have time to locate that original thread this better connects to.

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

Well I'd hate to surprise or shock you RM.

Obviously you feel I'm ignoring your NIST defence.

Here's something more to your liking;

Some basic factual information extracted from the NIST report;

Just answer my question, please.

For those who are confused, Miragememories is referring to this thread, wherein you will see him repeatedly refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, much as he has just done yet again.

I'm also not at all of the opinion he's "ignoring" my defense, given that the thread above shows him to be utterly vanquished.

 

[Belz...]

Considering the abuse that's been wielded in the past here against members of LC in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, backlash is to be expected.

I'm not sure what the grievance against architect was but from at least one member's response (I don't recall the name), he was rather abusive to that member here.

My only issue with him was his failure to address the subject and tendency to steer with questions rather than give thoughtful responses.

Unquestionably he was polite but sometimes politeness is not the issue.

MM

Translation: We can ban you all we like, you damn JREFer shills!

 

[Belz...]

What is your point. JREF is far more than just the Conspiracy Forum. It's a much larger and more professional entity than the largely amateur volunteer driven LC Forum. I'm sure there are many here who would support banning if JREF and the moderators would sanction it.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Welcome..smile..that's kinda funny. Let's say at best, I'm tolerated.

That's already much better than what they do over at LC.

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory.

You have no idea what a Conspiracy Theory is, if you think the "official" story is a CT.

The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power. My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

That's nice. How exactly does this support your point ?

 

[VespaGuy]

What may be 'old hat' for you is new stuff for first timers. If you want to wear the hat of a professional skeptic, then you have to have the patience necessary to cover old ground.

"Professional skeptic"? Who's claiming to be that? I (like most here) have full-time jobs and spend free time on a skeptical forum. Nobody is professing to be a "professional skeptic" here that I know of.

(Besides, who wants to go "Pro"? Then you can't compete in the "skeptic olympics".)

I'm sure doctors grow weary of people with the same health conditions but that doesn't mean they switch to a nasty bedside manner.

Unless you're claiming that 9/11 conspiracy belief is an illness, I don't see the analogy.

(by the way, see how much tolerance your doctor has if you go to his office, listen to his diagnosis, and then say "thanks, Doc, but I have a homeopathic pill I bought at Bread & Circus. Even though I know nothing about medicine, I'm going to take this homeopathic pill instead of your prescription." Now do that every time you go to see him. I doubt he will keep that same pleasant bedside manner)

What is your point. JREF is far more than just the Conspiracy Forum. It's a much larger and more professional entity than the largely amateur volunteer driven LC Forum.

If you are claiming that the JREF has more "professionals" as members, I whole-heartedly agree. But membership here is just as voluntary as the LC forum.

If you are talking simply of the moderation, I agree that Dylan and the crew at LCF are extremely unprofessional.

I'm sure there are many here who would support banning if JREF and the moderators would sanction it.

Without anything to back that up, I'll assume that you are simply pulling it out of thin air.

I suggest you talk to architect not me. I have no intention of fighting other people's battles.

You are the one that brought up this mysterious person. You don't want to back up what you said? Fine.

Are you beginning to understand why some folks here have little patience?

Welcome..smile..that's kinda funny. Let's say at best, I'm tolerated.

Tolerance is a virtue unknown to the LCF crowd.

If you were expecting a parade with flowers, I'm sorry for the dissappointment. This is a skeptical and critical thinking forum. If you make a claim, you'd be prepared to defend it.

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory. The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power.

No. Just because you call it one, does not make it so. Is it possible that nobody has corrected you on this.

Yes, there was a conspiracy to attack the US by hijacking passenger planes and flying them into buidlings. That is not a 'conspiracy theory' as the term is used in popular language.

My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

Your side suffers from lack of evidence, and lack of anything resembling an actual theory.

 

[VespaGuy]

I think the only problem here is that members are far more likely to report a violation against someone that they disagree with, and look the other way if it's a comrade-in-arms. The forum mods/admins can only act on what they know about.

I agree. My point should have been that once the mod team receives a report, the label of "truther" or "skeptic" does not weigh on their decision.

This is obviously not the case at LCF.

 

[Architect]

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

 

[twinstead]

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

Acknowledged we treat CTs shabbily here sometimes. We shouldn't, but as long as he isn't banned, we're still one up on LC.

At least MM can post his responses to us.

 

[scissorhands]

I think the case with LCF is that its not meant as a forum for debate in the first place. The underlying reason for its existence is to pimp whatever abortion of a film that Dylan comes up with next.
Its populated by a high proportion of gullible teenagers that doubtless embarrass him with their inane posts on a daily basis.But they are HIS gullible teenagers and his bread and butter market.
Therefore its hardly surprising that the mods there have so little tolerance of dissent.
Avery isnt that bright, but he knows about customer loyalty.

 

[VespaGuy]

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

"Beating up"?

C'mon Architect, MMs original post had some spurious claims. Folks called him on them.

Nobody's yelling "shill" or "troll", nobodies hurling insults, and he's most definately not being suspended or banned.

 

[twinstead]

I think the case with LCF is that its not meant as a forum for debate in the first place. The underlying reason for its existence is to pimp whatever abortion of a film that Dylan comes up with next.
Its populated by a high proportion of gullible teenagers that doubtless embarrass him with their inane posts on a daily basis.But they are HIS gullible teenagers and his bread and butter market.
Therefore its hardly surprising that the mods there have so little tolerance of dissent.
Avery isnt that bright, but he knows about customer loyalty.

Good point. We are probably comparing apples to oranges when comparing JREF and LCF

 

[Architect]

"Beating up"?

C'mon Architect, MMs original post had some spurious claims. Folks called him on them.

Nobody's yelling "shill" or "troll", nobodies hurling insults, and he's most definately not being suspended or banned.

I dunno, it read it a bit "shouty".

 

[Miragememories]

The entire board sounds like nothing more than a mutual admiration society with a closed membership list.

Rolfe.

I couldn't let that statement go by without comment.

You have just described the JREF Conspiracy Forum on the button!

MM

 

[VespaGuy]

I dunno, it read it a bit "shouty".

Ok, I'll give you that (although I think that most debates read that way.)

However, member behaviour and moderation behaviour are two different things. The issue at hand was the lopsided moderation at LCF. The only reason the JREF moderation was even brought up was because MM claimed that the LCF bans were 'backlash'.

Since the JREF moderation has been extremely fair, and since the Conspiracy Forums didn't even exist when dissenting opinions were initially being purged from LCF, I think it's pretty obvious that MMs 'backlash' reasoning is hogwash.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The facts notwithstanding, eh, MM? Seriously, we aren't a mutual admiraiton society becuase we like to have facts.

 

[VespaGuy]

I couldn't let that statement go by without comment.

You have just described the JREF Conspiracy Forum on the button!

MM

Care to explain why you think the JREF has closed membership?

 

[Miragememories]

Just answer my question, please.

For those who are confused, Miragememories is referring to this thread, wherein you will see him repeatedly refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, much as he has just done yet again.

I'm also not at all of the opinion he's "ignoring" my defense, given that the thread above shows him to be utterly vanquished.

So you'd rather discuss personality treatments rather than engineering fallacies for a change?

I never saw you deal with my challenge to your "fuel momentum capable of taking out core columns" belief!

NIST negates it as I sourced, but you ignored that response and stayed with your rhetoric.

Sorry. You'd rather talk about bs bannings which I have no involvement in and can only express an opinion which I have.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Ok, I'll give you that (although I think that most debates read that way.)

However, member behaviour and moderation behaviour are two different things. The issue at hand was the lopsided moderation at LCF. The only reason the JREF moderation was even brought up was because MM claimed that the LCF bans were 'backlash'.

Since the JREF moderation has been extremely fair, and since the Conspiracy Forums didn't even exist when dissenting opinions were initially being purged from LCF, I think it's pretty obvious that MMs 'backlash' reasoning is hogwash.

Wrong!

I never said moderators were responding as backlash.

I was referring to how some and I emphasize some LC members were voicing ill feeling about JREF as what I interpreted to be backlash from their ill treatment here.

MM