My First Ever Banning

[Miragememories]

Yes MM there have been many scandals and secrets have been exposed. They are now a matter of record. See secrets do not remain secret for long, when these secrets are actually factual based. There is always a general desire to exposes wrong doing and there is never a need or want to suppress it.

I'd say that qualifies as a myth or wishful thinking.

How could you possibly know what, and how many, fact based secrets have not been exposed?

This is where you fail, you appear to truly believe that anybody who does not agree with you simply does so because they are afraid to think outside the box or afraid to face the truth.

"I appear" to be subjected to your "spin".

Disagreement based on solid facts, logic, ethics, greater experience, greater expertise, anecdotal knowledge etc., are all potential avenues that are valid and not instantly interpreted by myself as a fear of the truth.

In this you are incorrect, I can only speak for myself,

Oh if you only would. Alas you insist on speaking for me while relying on your biases for a guide.

I am neither afraid of the truth nor have I any desire to see it suppressed. Equally so if there was anything at all that was promoted as the truth that warranted further investigation it is almost certain these secrets would be exposed. People would talk, there would be whistle blows because as you have said yourself, throughout history many people have made sacrifices and have risked everything to exposes wrong doing. Yet, nobody has stepped forward about 911, a conspiracy of mass murder that took place over five years ago. Why are people being quiet MM, where is this bravery you like to promote? The same bravery you pretend to have and of course anybody who disagrees with does not process.

Throughout history is a long time. Heroes have always been few and whistle blowers have most often been ostracized as disloyal, untrustworthy "rats".

There are many reasons why potential 9/11 whistle blowers haven't come forward. Given the gravity of 9/11 and all that has followed in it's wake, it's small wonder that few with inside knowledge would be willing to expose themselves to an uncertain reception. Today's press corps, the people a whistle blower would normally take their story to, show little interest in acting against corporate policy which solidly supports the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Why MM, after five years does this massive conspiracy that involves thousands of people, including those who investigated it, still remain secret?

That sounds like NIST's missing WTC7 report. We don't know how many people have direct, whistle-blower type knowledge. I certainly doubt it's in the thousands. Combine that with the fact that they've remained silent for so long and would be considered accessories to a such a horrific crime, it's no surprise than no one is volunteering to admit they participated in such an abomination.

You know why, because it does not exist, other than in your mind. It is your chance to take the moral high ground and pretend that you and your fellow truthers are actually being brave, speaking out. You want to be recognised and be given the accolade that genuinely brave people get. This will never happen because you will never expose what is not there. To compensate for this you get all upset and call people blind, incapable of being able to think for themselves, a frightened group that seeks to reinforce their own beliefs with group mentality.

It must be so frustrating for you, unable and unwilling to accept that your vast conspiracy is simply in your mind and is not based in reality. For reality is that was there anything behind these theories, they would have been exposed years ago and by far braver people than you and your movement will ever be.

If it was a personal glory trip as you believe, don't you think I'd use my real name?

You are right about one thing. If it's not there, it certainly can't be exposed.

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

MM

 

[twinstead]

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

A good question, and one you might want to think about answering for yourself if it ISN'T there.

 

[Miragememories]

Says the upstanding citizen who twice made the accusation that 9/11 has been good for me, and twice refused to apologize for that statement.

Sick.

I guess it all depends on what the word "good" implies.

9/11 itself was of course horrific and not good.

BUT..

Most people would accept becoming more popular as "good".
You have become very popular here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum largely through your 9/11 related activity.

Most people feel "good" when their ego or self esteem gets a boost.
You seem appreciative of all the praise your 9/11-related online publishing efforts have received. I assume that was a "good" feeling.

I watched your Ground Zeros 9/11 video all the way through.
You really sounded like you were having a "good" time.

Many of your 9/11 posts and replys go beyond the informative. They are frequently mocking, arrogant and insulting.
Assuming it is not painful for you to behave in such a manner, I can only assume that these immature assaults on individuals who disagree with you, are designed to make them feel bad and you feel smug and "good".

I believe I spoke the truth and there are few circumstances where one should apologize for expressing the truth.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Many of your 9/11 posts and replys go beyond the informative. They are frequently mocking, arrogant and insulting.
Assuming it is not painful for you to behave in such a manner, I can only assume that these immature assaults on individuals who disagree with you, are designed to make them feel bad and you feel smug and "good".

This, IMHO, gets the coveted Pot Calling the Kettle Black award.

 

[uk_dave]

I guess it all depends on what the word "good" implies.

9/11 itself was of course horrific and not good.

BUT..

......

I believe I spoke the truth and there are few circumstances where one should apologize for expressing the truth.

MM

Dizzy much?

 

[Miragememories]

A good question, and one you might want to think about answering for yourself if it ISN'T there.

Well I've answered that question before and I'll answer it again.

Just like yourself I'm sure, the evidence has to be convincing.

Having said that, I would rejoice to discover that my beliefs about 9/11 Truth were unfounded and that I had been backing the wrong horse.

It's scary dealing with terrorists on two fronts. One that is seen and one that is well hidden. A solid proof that the Official Conspiracy Theory is valid would eliminate the unseen enemy, not mention help America's image.

MM

 

[LashL]

OMG did I get the colour of the paint wrong to?

All you've proved in this exchange is that you were willing to waste your time seeking out irrelevant minutiae to prove I was in error about details that were of little significance to the subject. If I had known you were working on a court case I would have verified every detail first.

The only thing that was significant is the fact that 2180 Yonge is architecturally similar to the WTC towers. It is a 'suspension' design allowing for large open floor spaces. It is structurally supported by it's perimeter walls and centre core.

So I guess your whole purpose was to achieve an "Oh, the irony"? Well if it makes your day C, bask in it.

Too funny.

MM

No, the purpose was to show that you are very loose with the truth, that you offer up "facts" that are not factual at all, that when confronted with evidence of your inaccuracy, you continue to insist that you are right even when it is obvious that you are wrong, and that throughout the process, you unjustifiably call into question the credibility of the person challenging your factual inaccuracy - without ever bothering to ascertain the truth for yourself but maintaining that you are right nonetheless.

Thus, it was a worthwhile exercise, and it took very little time to prove you wrong, as usual.

Because, of course:

Stating facts that aren't facts makes me wonder about other statements you've made with such certainty?

 

[Miragememories]

Sure, here is my opinion.

On several occasions now I have been directly insulted, indirectly called a wanker, moron, idiot etc. I watch 'truthers' post insults, spam threads with worthless information and literally do nothing but insult people without any action by administration. I once made the mistake of questioning Dylan on Jowenko and was immediately suspended for a week without even the ability to clarify my post.

LC maintains an aggressive stance and they will ban anyone who makes any comment which can remotely be considered tarnishing to the conspiracy movement as a whole. I have been exceedingly careful and have re-edited several of my posts in cases where I felt I was being too aggressive.

There is no real element of 'serious debate' on LC, just a few isolated debates that pop up until the person involved stops responding to the points put forward. Case in point.

But you haven't been banned!

And while I have attacked your posts and motives, I haven't resorting to name calling.

People who resort to cheap name calling have to face being themselves judged and not just the people they target.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Well I've answered that question before and I'll answer it again.

Just like yourself I'm sure, the evidence has to be convincing.

Having said that, I would rejoice to discover that my beliefs about 9/11 Truth were unfounded and that I had been backing the wrong horse.

It's scary dealing with terrorists on two fronts. One that is seen and one that is well hidden. A solid proof that the Official Conspiracy Theory is valid would eliminate the unseen enemy, not mention help America's image.

MM

Well here's the rub: What if two otherwise reasonable people disagree on what is convincing evidence?

You have gone on record as suggesting that even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, many here at JREF would continue to support what you consider the 'big lie'. Far enough.

I submit that when faced by what I consider compelling evidence that your theory is wrong you would ALSO continue to support your movement, which I consider the 'big lie'.

What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion concerning what is compelling evidence.

 

[stateofgrace]

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

MM

Yes MM, my massive investment in the big lie. I will tell you what MM, why don't you tell me who is lying, come son beam you have now made a claim, back it up. Name names, tell me the truth, who are you accusing of lying? NIST? The FBI? The CIA ?NORAD? NEADS ? Who MM, come on you freedom fighting truth warrior tell me.

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF LYING AND BEING INVOLVED IN MASS MURDER?

Maybe this lot?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...24&postcount=3

please save your further self righteous condemnation of anybody that does not believe your theories until you address this and name exactly who you are accusing of lying. Will you do that MM? I doubt it, it is better to take the moral high ground and claim everybody is lying apart from you of course.

The lies come from you and your movement either put up right now and tell me exactly who is lying or for ever hold your tongue.

 

[Miragememories]

No, the purpose was to show that you are very loose with the truth, that you offer up "facts" that are not factual at all, that when confronted with evidence of your inaccuracy, you continue to insist that you are right even when it is obvious that you are wrong, and that throughout the process, you unjustifiably call into question the credibility of the person challenging your factual inaccuracy - without ever bothering to ascertain the truth for yourself but maintaining that you are right nonetheless.

Thus, it was a worthwhile exercise, and it took very little time to prove you wrong, as usual.

Because, of course:

Too funny.

So in other words you were just game playing.

The fact that I was in error about the heigth of the building was more important to you than the fact that it was of similar construction and completion date as the WTC tower.

Had I have known 9/11 was not of interest and that petty details were, I would have withheld my reply until I got to work tomorrow and could confirm those unimportant details.

I dare say it would have ruined your weekend if I had gotten all your trivial questions right.

Victory at any cost eh C...no matter how shallow.

MM

 

[twinstead]

So MM tell me again how it is WE who are so arrogant?

 

[beachnut]

omg the "legend in his own mind" has stepped out from behind the curtains.

Had to wait until you felt safe I guess.

Well your rhetoric certainly keeps marching on.

Sounds like my recent analysis of your pathetic creative efforts have touched a nerve.

Rent a clown costume and I'm sure you can make a decent living doing children's birthday parties. Plus there's the added bonus that they'll believe just about anything Bozo tells them.

MM

Is this what truthers do when the never had any facts and unable to find any? Sad. Doing the thing you say others are doing. Good job. Bring facts next time, but then there are zero facts in the lie machine 9/11 truth.

 

[Miragememories]

Architect, who designs tall buildings, June 1



Response from Miragememories:


Architect:


Architect, June 3


Miragememories


Miragememories


Architect


Miragememories


Translation, "Like other 9/11 conspiracists, I refuse to take a few minutes to look into information provided to me by qualified professionals in relevant disciplines. In fact, I deride the people who make such suggestions."

It's all "good" Gravy.

We know you are an accomplished 'cut 'n paste' artist.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Well here's the rub: What if two otherwise reasonable people disagree on what is convincing evidence?

You have gone on record as suggesting that even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, many here at JREF would continue to support what you consider the 'big lie'. Far enough.

I submit that when faced by what I consider compelling evidence that your theory is wrong you would ALSO continue to support your movement, which I consider the 'big lie'.

What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion concerning what is compelling evidence.

Maybe we do and maybe we don't.

Certainly the compelling evidence has yet to appear for either of us.

MM

 

[LashL]

Dupe -connection glitch

 

[LashL]

Dupe - connection glitch.

 

[twinstead]

Maybe we do and maybe we don't.

Certainly the compelling evidence has yet to appear for either of us.

Again that's a matter of opinion. I think this all boils down to politics. You see, I hate the Bush administration. I think it is one of, if not THE worst administrations in US history.

Yet, I do not think they are responsible for 911.

You hate them just as much, and as an added bonus you think they orchestrated 911.

I already hate them. If I was presented compelling evidence that they were responsible I would be right out there in the streets protesting; I would hate them nevertheless.

Again, it's a very basic issue of ones definition of compelling evidence. IMO, there is NONE that changes in any way in any major form the official explanation.

You think that anybody who believes the official explanation is a shill.

Therefore, you think I am a shill. So be it. I submit that you are shill to your movement.

 

[uk_dave]

What the hell is a 'suspension' design anyways?

Suspension normally implies that the load is carried from above rather than below, hence a 'suspension bridge' supports the deck by hanging it from cables.

The towers, as far as I am aware, had no suspension features since the floor trusses carrying the live and dead loads within the building were supported at their ends by the interior and exterior columns.

Where does 'suspension' come into this?

 

[LashL]

Too funny.

So in other words you were just game playing.

The fact that I was in error about the heigth of the building was more important to you than the fact that it was of similar construction and completion date as the WTC tower.

Had I have known 9/11 was not of interest and that petty details were, I would have withheld my reply until I got to work tomorrow and could confirm those unimportant details.

I dare say it would have ruined your weekend if I had gotten all your trivial questions right.

Victory at any cost eh C...no matter how shallow.

MM

Wrong, as usual, mirage.

The fact is that you were wrong on every single point about the building and the surrounding buildings, and you have not provided any evidence of it being of similar design to the WTC towers except for saying that someone told you 1972 that it was a suspension design.

The fact is that you are so unaware of your surroundings that you don't even know how many floors there are in the building that you work in.

The fact is that you claimed to be in the 22nd floor stairwell of an 18 storey building.

The fact is that you claimed that the building next door was 22 storeys tall when it is merely 6 storeys tall.

The fact is that you claimed to be positive that a building built in 1987 was there in 1972.

The fact is that you INSISTED that I was wrong when I pointed out the facts and you called my credibility into question based upon the very points that you now dismiss as trivial.

So, they were important enough to you to use them as a basis for questioning my credibility, but but trivial now that I have demonstrated that you were dead wrong. Got it.

I think that this is somewhat illuminating about how loose with the truth you are, how poor your powers of observation are, how quickly you accuse others of being wrong about factual matters without expending the slightest effort to ascertain those facts yourself, and, therefore, how valueless your opinions (disguised as facts) are.