• 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.

My First Ever Banning

Only a fool would waste time and energy on someone who is convinced of the invincibility of their conclusions.
Invincible? Hardly. Present strong enough evidence to change my mind.

Which was exactly what you thought you were doing earlier in this thread. But when your strong evidence turned out not to be as strong as you thought it was once the flaws were pointed out to you, you have now abandoned your points rather than A) defending them with other supplementary evidence, or B) admitting you were in error.

My rebuttal to you was a very simple one. You incorrectly assumed "maximum cruising speed" meant maximum speed possible by the aircraft. I pointed out to you what is actually meant by "cruising speed" and, rather than acknowledging your incorrect assumption or attempting to refute my point, you've simply ignored it.

And seem to be rather defensive about it in the process.
 
RM I don't speak for LC.

You seem to have reasonable intelligence.

A person with a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" is anyone who enters a discussion but has absolutely no intention of participating in a true discussion. They are convinced they have the best understanding and have closed the door (in their mind) to any further doubt. Their sole purpose in participating in the discussion is to convert others to their side.

I am not on record as saying that Architect was that type of person.

I do think he is a NISTian, though not as extreme as yourself.

I do hope that satisfies your graving for an answer from me?

MM

Yeah, though it would have been nice if it didn't take over a week and five requests to get an answer, since it was your statement and not any official policy of the "Loose Change" Forums I was asking about.

So, if I understand your answer correctly, you're basically describing "thoughtcrime?" Is that it? Wow.
 
I'm sure Mack will be delighted to hear from you that his years earning his PhD were not all for naught.

For the record, I do not have, nor have ever claimed to have, a Ph. D. I have four degrees in total, but none of them is the Piled Higher and Deeper.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying a low IQ is not indicative of the followers of 9/11 truth which is made up of lies and misinformation, and you call your brother a redneck like me? What about those codecs? Does this mean you understand that ATC speed of 500 meant, 570 mph?

When someone says redneck trucker I was thinking you were kind of bigoted for saying it. I guess your bother in-law does not care. I still think it is bigoted to say it. And imply they would not like certain types of music. You said it, and I labeled it as being the bigot you seem to be. And then you throw out the 9/11 lies, but came up short. Have you figured out the aircraft speed yet? CODEC?

No I don't accept that after numerous pages of in depth calculations, a reputable MIT professor's meticulously calculated speed for UA-175 of 503 mph can be casually dismissed as equivalent to the NIST figure of 570 mph.


Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

You have to be blind if you don't realize that you are a member of a group with a similar representation.

Some of you are brilliant and some of you are a**holes.

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!

Yes there are many who conveniently deserve the mocking labels people like yourself wish to saddle all of us with.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

I'm not calling you a redneck..you certainly qualify as a "loose cannon "though.

My brother-in-law knows that I respect him as a person and that I am well aware that he is an intelligent man. We can't all be rocket scientists. I grew up in a small town of 4,000 people and I am not a snob about occupations. I've done farm labour, cleaned furnaces, worked in road construction, house painting, plumber's helper, in short, I've had a good look at both sides of the occupational fence. Some jobs are dirty, but they have to be done, and it doesn't mean that the person doing them should be equated with the job.

Those codecs referred to an area of my expertise that were not expected to be your area of expertise. Architect referred me to a topic that I was unfamiliar with and I just meant to give him a taste of his own medicine.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations. I 've now worked in broadcast TV for 35 years. I've met many Hollywood celebrities and I have met many heads of government. They are all 'real' people just like you and me. I used to be in awe of their celebrity status but over time I've seen to many of their human failings, heard too many farts, seen too much intoxication and listened to too much 'earthy' humour to remain under their celebrity spell.

I respect the NIST engineers and their qualifications. I'm sure they know far more about their areas of expertise than I ever will. I'm equally sure that just like many creators, authors, directors etc., they have limited control over how their work is used. And this is where you and I separate company. The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

Just be your own man beachnut. That's all I'm trying to do.

MM
 
<snip>As a footnote, I work in a building that is designed along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2. It's the south tower of two. It was also completed in 1973. So far, other tthan a few stairwell cracks on the 22nd floor, it looks like it might remain standing.
MM

Which one is the south building, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one?

And how is its design "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2"?
 
Yeah, though it would have been nice if it didn't take over a week and five requests to get an answer, since it was your statement and not any official policy of the "Loose Change" Forums I was asking about.

So, if I understand your answer correctly, you're basically describing "thoughtcrime?" Is that it? Wow.

You are a busy man!

I am a busy man!

Some questions are more worth responding to than others.

You got a thoughtful answer from me yet you reply with your own brand of smearing interpretation. I hope that provided you with a few 'giggles'.

Some people think in a tunnel and others try to think wide like the horizon.

The tunnel is great as long as it's narrow focus is on topic.

MM
 
I respect the NIST engineers and their qualifications. I'm sure they know far more about their areas of expertise than I ever will. I'm equally sure that just like many creators, authors, directors etc., they have limited control over how their work is used. And this is where you and I separate company. The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

I call BS. You say you have respect for the NIST engineers, yet in your scenario they are too cowardly to come forward and reveal that their work is being used improperly.

You are doing the same thing Pdoherty is doing; you are kissing up to a group of people whom you hold in contempt to appear moral.

It disgusts me.
 
Which one is the south building, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one?

And how is its design "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2"?

I believe C., they are both 22 story towers.

Are you trying to awe me with your research of that which has been laid bare for you to see?

MM
 
I really love you Belz. I do wish you would send me what you're smokin'..it must be great stuff.

Not sure you'd like it. It's called reality.

NIST picked the one that worked. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Of course they picked the one that worked. That's what I've been telling you. You're using the fact that they did as some sort of a dubious indication that they were dishonest in their picking it. This is the same sort of reasoning that other truthers use when they claim that the area of the Pentagon that 77 hit was the precise intended target of the terrorists. No matter which scenario they would've picked, you'd have some issue with it. I call that being dishonest.

They decided that impact and fire collapsed the world's largest buildings and unfortunately for them it took their most severe case simulation to generate what appeared to be a collapse initiation...whoopee...break out the champagne!

I don't see a problem with that. I would see a problem with their simulation if NONE of the scenarios had caused anything near a global collapse. But of course, anyone with a basic grasp of physics could tell the buildings were doomed.

When you push the edge of the envelope you should always ask yourself ..why?

Careful, now. The last thing you want to do right now is accuse me of being a paid shill or a supporter of the statu quo or whatnot. You have NO idea who I am or what's going on in my head. So why don't you just stick to the evidence instead of turning this into a speculation match.

Gee I thought Mack said he only had his Masters?

Gee darn, Mirage. I guess humour's completely lost on you. "Hey the guy said PhD but he only has a Master's. The whole thing falls apart."

I can't remember. Which truther was it that was accusing me of not seeing the forest for the trees ?
 
Invincible? Hardly. Present strong enough evidence to change my mind.

Which was exactly what you thought you were doing earlier in this thread. But when your strong evidence turned out not to be as strong as you thought it was once the flaws were pointed out to you, you have now abandoned your points rather than A) defending them with other supplementary evidence, or B) admitting you were in error.

My rebuttal to you was a very simple one. You incorrectly assumed "maximum cruising speed" meant maximum speed possible by the aircraft. I pointed out to you what is actually meant by "cruising speed" and, rather than acknowledging your incorrect assumption or attempting to refute my point, you've simply ignored it.

And seem to be rather defensive about it in the process.

This may shock you Corsair but I'm quite adept at using a dictionary.

I'm well aware that "cruising" is not the same as "maximum" and your assumption that I thought differently was mistaken.

I'm also well aware that the cruising speed of a car is totally irrelevant when discussing the maximum cruising speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet of altitude.

Are you?

I've largely ignored what you've had to say because in comparison with what R. Mackey was posting, your comments were juvenile and thoughtless.

You are probably better off just observing until you have something worth saying..in my opinion that is. Feel free to post all you want. I'm just explaining why I don't feel obliged to reply.

MM
 
I suspect the rank 'n file here

Rank-and-file ? I wasn't aware we had a hierarchy.

Huh. Waddayano.

are so in love with the OCT because they hate to see America "dis'd".

Well either I'm not rank-and-file or you're just spewing nonsense again. I'm Canadian. What do I care if the USA gets dissed ? I have no problem thinking that Bush and co. could do something wrong or even criminal. But the evidence must support it.

I mean I know you grew up with the idea that that America was "lilly white" and could never be involved in something so black as 9/11.

Laurel and Hardy should've made "March of the Strawmen Soldiers" instead.
 
BS

Thinking differently is what the JREF Conspiracy forum objects to.

In LC we only ask that you be prepared to have an honest discussion.

MM

If that's actually the case, would you mind trying to explain why people at LCF would have any reason to ban me, or ban Architect, or ban any number of people who have posted dissenting opinions, backed up with verifiable and objective evidences, with all courtesy?

Meanwhile, while some people here may ridicule you somewhat, no one is calling for you to be banned or even suspended, so long as your posts are within the rules of the forum (and they seem to be).
 
I believe C., they are both 22 story towers.

Are you trying to awe me with your research of that which has been laid bare for you to see?

MM

No, MM, I am curious to know which one is the south one, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one, and curious to know how the design is "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2". That is why I asked.
 
I call BS. You say you have respect for the NIST engineers, yet in your scenario they are too cowardly to come forward and reveal that their work is being used improperly.

You are doing the same thing Pdoherty is doing; you are kissing up to a group of people whom you hold in contempt to appear moral.

It disgusts me.

They aren't cowards. Go study your history. Many people have remained silent when they knew lies were being presented as fact.

NIST engineers have families, friends, careers, all to be lost if they start whistle blowing.

How much guts do you display with your cheap remarks twinstead?

I'm not kissing up to anyone.

I'm simply speaking my mind and unlike yourself, I don't worry about upsetting the rest of the JREF family.

MM
 
No I don't accept that after numerous pages of in depth calculations, a reputable MIT professor's meticulously calculated speed for UA-175 of 503 mph can be casually dismissed as equivalent to the NIST figure of 570 mph.

What part of "the angle is the most important factor" don't you get ?

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

Do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans who gave their lives on that day, trying to save people from those burning towers, by saying that their government was, contra all the evidence, involved in planning this tragedy, and hinting that they, themselves, were in on it ?

Some of you are brilliant and some of you are a**holes.

Why, thank you. I assume I'm part of the latter group.

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!

Rhetoric. I can claim things like this, too. In fact, I can repeat them so many times that you're likely to eventually believe me, seeing as how you seem to think that repetition makes right.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

That's fine. What's not fine is that they let their bias and paranoia guide their opinions, when far more knowledgeable and experienced people continuously show them wrong. And no, I don't mean me.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations.

That's fine. But when the NASA guy explains to me some explosion mechanics, I won't go around calling him an idiot just because my brain can't wrap itself around the numbers he's crunching.

I've met many Hollywood celebrities and I have met many heads of government.

Can you arrange meetings and dinners ? I'm partial to Jessica Alba.

They are all 'real' people just like you and me.

Even more so, given their fortunes.

The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Again, speculation. It's fine that you bring this idea to the table, but would you mind substantiating it with evidence ? Instead of the "lilly white" USA you say we paint, you seem to be using broad black strokes.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

That, we can agree on.
 
Last edited:
No, MM, I am curious to know which one is the south one, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one, and curious to know how the design is "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2". That is why I asked.

Where are you getting the 30 story figure from?

Both towers are suspension buildings as were the WTC towers.

I wouldn't have known this only I photographed them for an architect around 1972 and he was making such a point about their unique engineering.

MM
 

Back
Top Bottom