My First Ever Banning

[uk_dave]

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."

Well I'd hate the shock you but the tower DID survive the initial impact of the plane.

Of course what you wilfully ignore is the FACT that the subsequent fire compounded the initial damage to the point where the structure failed.

Now, I know that you know this.
You know that you know this.

So, why do you continue to spin?

 

[VespaGuy]

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

It's obvious to anyone who reads the thread what you were saying, MM.

 

[Miragememories]

It's obvious to anyone who reads the thread what you were saying, MM.

You can put whatever spin you like on my words.

I have no idea what the LC moderators think as they have never corresponded with me.

I do see in their posts, what various LC members feel and it was those reactions that prompted my response.

Go back to Mindreading 101.

MM

 

[Belz...]

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

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

MM

Well, well. Miragememories' first Tu Quoque of the day.

 

[Architect]

MM - you and Jackchit seem to agree that nothing was done to warrant the banning, but neither of you are party to the mods decision. You also think that the mods there may feel a bit embattled and hence this could colour their response to JREFers. You both reckon we at JREF can be a wee bit like that too, and jump down people's throats. Agreed?

Vespa - They're not particularly supporting the mods decision, they seem to acknowledge that LCF may not be quite as open to sceptic views as one would expect, and all of us at JREF reckon it's evidence of a deeper schism. We know that Roxdog and others are nasty beyone belief, but we also acknowledge that sometimes we jump down CTers throats the moment they appear. Agreed?

Right, can we get back to technical issues? And please MM, stop putting "drop" in bold and repeating it all the time. It doesn't help. Let's all stick to evidence and science. Except in the case of Kingdom, who might want to consider it for the first time!

 

[VespaGuy]

You can put whatever spin you like on my words.

I have no idea what the LC moderators think as they have never corresponded with me.

I do see in their posts, what various LC members feel and it was those reactions that prompted my response.

Go back to Mindreading 101.

MM

Your original post, directed at nobody, in a thread about banning and lopsided moderation at LCF, with no mention of LC members 'feelings', said that backlash was expected.

It would definately take a mind-reader to interpret it to mean what you say it meant.

But no worries; we can now agree that the banning was not backlash for truther treatment here, correct?

 

[VespaGuy]

Vespa - They're not particularly supporting the mods decision, they seem to acknowledge that LCF may not be quite as open to sceptic views as one would expect, and all of us at JREF reckon it's evidence of a deeper schism. We know that Roxdog and others are nasty beyone belief, but we also acknowledge that sometimes we jump down CTers throats the moment they appear. Agreed?

Agreed. And I apologise for the MM derail.

 

[uk_dave]

OK, so let's say we frequent a forum where the general consensus is that on a sunny day the sky is blue.

Then along comes a poster who wants us to believe that actually the sky is purple.

Is that poster required to justify his/her claim?

Now, let's say we frequent a forum where everyone believes that the sky is purple.

And along comes a poster who wants us to believe that the sky is actually blue.

Is the poster required to convince us that the sky is blue, or are we required to convince the poster that the sky is purple?

 

[Architect]

I'm from Scotland. The sky is grey.







ETA: but clearly been photshopped in my avatar

 

[Miragememories]

Well I'd hate the shock you but the tower DID survive the initial impact of the plane.

I don't see your point David? My point was in regard to the gross exaggeration of NIST's damage claims.

WTC1 was hit dead center on the 95th floor where the core was lighter and weaker because it was engineered for less overhead load (15 floors) than the core on the 80th floor of WTC2 which carried 30 floors.

WTC1's core would have lined up with the both of the 767 engines as well as the landing gear (as R. Mackey likes to point out).

Surprisingly, NIST decided WTC1 received less core damage than WTC2 which was hit off center in the corner. WTC2's stronger core was impacted by only one engine and whatever fragments from the left wing which survived the impact with the perimeter wall.

NIST decided WTC2 had 67% more of it's stronger core columns severed (10 of 47) than for WTC1 (6 of 47).

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

Of course what you wilfully ignore is the FACT that the subsequent fire compounded the initial damage to the point where the structure failed.

Now, I know that you know this.
You know that you know this.

So, why do you continue to spin?

All things being equal, WTC2 (South Tower) should have had less structural damage and because of the corner impact, less fire, yet it collapsed in roughly half the time of WTC1 (North Tower).

MM

 

[Quad4_72]

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

MM

Here you seem to be suggesting that NIST is involved in the conspiracy by intentionally altering their evidence to make it fit their theory. Please provide some evidence as to why NIST would do this and what they stand to gain. Were they paid off? If you are going to suggest that NIST is trying to cover up the murder of thousands, you need some EVIDENCE.

 

[Miragememories]

Right, can we get back to technical issues? And please MM, stop putting "drop" in bold and repeating it all the time. It doesn't help. Let's all stick to evidence and science. Except in the case of Kingdom, who might want to consider it for the first time!

I use emphasis (BOLD), when I feel it's necessary for people to actually stop and consider a statement more carefully than they appear to be doing.

DROP may not be a nice technical term but it's meaning is clear to engineers and lay people alike.

You ignored it's use at LC, never responding, but instead redirecting via questions about my opinions on other reports.

Greening was particular concerned about NIST's failure to address the exact means of sudden onset collapse initiation (DROP) and so am I.

The large kinetic energy requirement for the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis is based on this 1 floor DROP.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Here you seem to be suggesting that NIST is involved in the conspiracy by intentionally altering their evidence to make it fit their theory. Please provide some evidence as to why NIST would do this and what they stand to gain. Were they paid off? If you are going to suggest that NIST is trying to cover up the murder of thousands, you need some EVIDENCE.

When I speak of NIST, I'm thinking usually of the NIST Administration. These are the people who set policy, determine priorities, wield real decision making power etc. etc.

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

The leaders of the U.S. government were openly stating the chosen theory long before NIST had to give it any thought. The public witnessed the once in a lifetime (hopefully) traumatizing televised 'shock and awe' event of 9/11, they were immediately told the Official Conspiracy Theory, the major media gave their unanimous support, mass opinion quickly solidified in favor of the what became a well entrenched Official Conspiracy Theory and any nay sayers were quickly accused of being unpatriotic, nutcases or closet terrorists.

NIST, a branch of the U.S. government's Commerce Dept., was given the funding and the assignment to investigate the technical details of 9/11 and the WTC. NIST administrators who were overseeing this major investigation are career public administrators. They knew which way the wind was blowing.

Since I don't suggest or have any reason to believe NIST was involved in what transpired on 9/11, I'm sure they never considered a lack of objectivity to be evil.

They had two choices. Either aircraft damage and fire brought the towers down or it was a controlled demolition.

Make the numbers crunch for choice No.1 through tight overseering of the investigation or "damn the torpedoes" and risk a wide open objective investigation that might result in a conclusion of choice No.2 and have to present that finding publicly.

We all know the likely horrific consequences that would have resulted from a choice No.2 finding.

MM

 

[Belz...]

Surprisingly, NIST decided WTC1 received less core damage than WTC2 which was hit off center in the corner.

I find your use of the word "decided" somewhat dishonest.

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

Circular reasoning. You're assuming they lied, and then fitting a theory to explain it.

All things being equal, WTC2 (South Tower) should have had less structural damage and because of the corner impact, less fire, yet it collapsed in roughly half the time of WTC1 (North Tower).

Less CORE structural damage. Or did you forget what part of the building held most of the mass up ? Also, you might have missed the fact that the airplane hit much lower. Or will you ignore that and not respond, like every truther before you, whenever I mention that ?

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

Wouldn't you ask for the same ?

 

[Belz...]

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

Again, you're assuming your conclusion.

The leaders of the U.S. government were openly stating the chosen theory long before NIST had to give it any thought.

So in order to be credible to you, an investigation's conclusion has to be at odds with the original assessment ?

The public witnessed the once in a lifetime (hopefully) traumatizing televised 'shock and awe' event of 9/11, they were immediately told the Official Conspiracy Theory, the major media gave their unanimous support, mass opinion quickly solidified in favor of the what became a well entrenched Official Conspiracy Theory and any nay sayers were quickly accused of being unpatriotic, nutcases or closet terrorists.

And what part of this do you find suspicious ? People well-versed in Bin Laden's history were quick to single him out; many of them didn't have any affiliation with the government. Hell, the first thing _I_ thought was "terrorists!" before anyone else said anything about it. And the response to nay-sayers ? What do you expect from people ? Remember communist paranoia back in the day ?

NIST, a branch of the U.S. government's Commerce Dept.,

and therefore thoroughly evil,

was given the funding and the assignment to investigate the technical details of 9/11 and the WTC. NIST administrators who were overseeing this major investigation are career public administrators. They knew which way the wind was blowing.

Speculation. We can go on all day about what you think went on in other people's heads, but in the end you simply have no evidence to support your claim. All you have is your opinion that people in power are uniformly bad, and that all government employees are mindless drones that obey orders without question or remorse.

Make the numbers crunch for choice No.1 through tight overseering of the investigation or "damn the torpedoes" and risk a wide open objective investigation that might result in a conclusion of choice No.2 and have to present that finding publicly.

We all know the likely horrific consequences that would have resulted from a choice No.2 finding.

Yes, and we also all know that any expert from outside the US would have been quick to point out the obvious flaws in the reports had this been true.

Or do you ?

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

I'm really finding your behavior hard to understand, Miragememories.

For what it's worth, I answered your "fuel momentum vs. core column" question (a simple case of you conflating two arguments) in this post, as part of a three week project where I argued you to a standstill on NIST. But that's neither here nor there. None of this has the slightest bearing on this thread, or on what I asked you.

You said that the Loose Change forums were concerned about "hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior." I don't know what that means. So I asked you this question:

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.

This has nothing to do with bannings, and everything to do with your opinion. So why won't you answer? I simply don't see your problem.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I'm really finding your behavior hard to understand, Miragememories.

For what it's worth, I answered your "fuel momentum vs. core column" question (a simple case of you conflating two arguments) in this post, as part of a three week project where I argued you to a standstill on NIST. But that's neither here nor there. None of this has the slightest bearing on this thread, or on what I asked you.

You said that the Loose Change forums were concerned about "hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior." I don't know what that means. So I asked you this question:



This has nothing to do with bannings, and everything to do with your opinion. So why won't you answer? I simply don't see your problem.

MM has made an art of prevarication. This forum is his canvas.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not at all!

I don't like banning. There are many options available that don't require such an extreme response.

You've missed the point. Do you think it's acceptable for LCF to take disciplinary action against a member based on posts that member has made at JREF? Because that's what you're suggesting is happening.

Dave

 

[Architect]

According to the delightful chaps on LCF I've not been banned, I've run away in fear of the arguments.

LOL. man they were loosers. bet they couldnt take the FACTS and ran away.

Witty or what, eh?

Meanwhile one of the Truthers is feeling the pressure from his own colleagues!

I see what's going on here. I am some sort of "infiltrator" by asking that question and will be forever held in suspicion for that. I see now,.

Listen you paranoid little slanderous PUNK. I am not here for your acceptance or "friendship". I am here to learn and possibly share information about the SUBVERSION of our country. I could care less about your personal feelings about me. When I hear voice recordings of people being MURDERED by a building falling on them, the last thing I think about is YOUR drama with the "JREF'ers"and your paranoia about who "might be lurking " in your precious WORLD errr forum.

Your slander is noted, NEVER address me again here on this forum, in fact pretend I'm not here. I have no tolerance for slander. It has jaded the 9/11 community and I won't tolerate it from you. Not on your [rule8] life pal.

I'm warming to this fellow, despite his rather strange theories.

 

[bje]

Your responsibility

When I speak of NIST, I'm thinking usually of the NIST Administration. These are the people who set policy, determine priorities, wield real decision making power etc. etc.

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

Here's the issue you and doubters at LCF need to address:

NIST's evidence, procedures, methodology, the qualifications of its invstigators, and its conclusions are fully open and transparent to everyone including, and especially, every qualified person in the world schooled in the disciplines used to study the collapses.

Furthermore, public hearings were held and the ability to submit public comments was present throughout the process.

Anyone in the world may challenge any part of the entire NIST investigation. But, in so doing, any challenge is subject to the same standards. You are entitled to question aspects you do not understand; you are also responsible for listening to the answers and either accept them or rebut them. You need to provide a plausible rebuttal with evidence.

What we see at LCF and with the entire 9/11 Truth Movement is quite different.

We hear repeated assertions and that have been answered repeatedly, yet the answers are rejected without any cogent rebuttal. If your claim is debunked, you have the obligation of demonstrating that the debunking is wrong; you don't ever to do that.

Your entire narrative is infused with claims of political motivation, coverups, dastardly deeds, but with no supporting evidence. When asked to provide a cogent and plausible scenario of how the entire "plot" that forms the basis of your claims was planned and executed successfully from A to Z with a small number of people, never seen, never found out, you guys never will answer the question.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not, the burden of proof is all on your shoulders. There are great knowledgeable people here who are offering their help - but you summarily dismiss them because - you know this - they bring you facts inconvenient to your desired conclusion.

When you cannot get beyond the same claims that were debunked up to 5 years ago, when you refuse to address issues that are inconvenient to your "narrative", you will go nowhere.

It's time for some intellectual honesty from you guys.