• 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

No not at all!

I have never used the word "shill" to describe anyone.

If you honestly believe what you say, than you are being true to yourself. That's fair enough.

I honestly believe what I say and that about sums it up.

You can crap on me if you like for not agreeing with your position but that doesn't change anything.

By the way, I don't hate Bush but I do agree he's probably a contender for worst ever president. I see him as a mere puppet being handled by others who are the ones I really hate.

MM

MM


Many of the problems of our post-literate society stem from the growing acceptability of hatred as a response. We "hate" an actor whose films are bad; we "hate" a co-worker whose opinions are valued higher than our own: we "hate" a politician with whose policies we disagree. It never occurs to many of us that rational people do not require intense emotion to undergird their judgments.

Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? Do you believe that his aim of dismantling al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was reprehensible because terrorist groups deserve to have a national base for their operations? If not, why the "hatred"? Do you believe that transforming Iraq into a liberal democracy that doesn't threaten its neighbors was an ignoble goal? If your only problems are with the ineffective and incompetently-applied methods to achieve that goal, again, why the hatred? Do you buy the fantasist idiocy that the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the murders of three thousand civilians, and the plunging of the national economy into recession served no higher purpose than lining the pockets of a few of Dick Cheney's cronies? If so, tell us why so many thousands chose to be complicit in the scheme. Were they compelled against their wills? Compelled by whom? What sort of invisible army can knock into line all the Democrats in the military, the FAA, FEMA, NIST, all the air traffic controllers, the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., all the forensic examiners, the Boeing Corporation, the seismologists, the independent researchers of ASCE, the media outlets that printed the names and seating positions of the hijackers--the list goes on. As every sane person recognizes at a glance, the whole conspiracy sand castle is a preposterous, lunatic fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense. Do you really believe it, or is it merely something you say reflexively? Who might the puppet-masters be? Did they surround Bill Clinton, whose policies and attitude differed sharply from Bush's? Will America's behavior toward terrorist groups in the Middle East change under a President Obama, or will he behave exactly the same as a President Giuliani? Is there an actual threat from radical Islam?

Your beliefs, as you have expressed them on this forum, appear unfalsifiable. You swallow uncritically a whole range of thoroughly discredited myths and you remain impervious to fact-based arguments. Is there any reason to regard your promotion of views that are unsupported by even a shred of evidence as anything but mindless "rage against the machine"?
 
Oh climb off your high horse RM.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Do you wipe up with the american flag or what?

MM
That whole "I don't stoop to name-calling" act wore off pretty quickly.

At least there's a Stundie-worthy quote in that misarable post.

And still no word on when Miragememories and his club will be presenting their irrefutable evidence.

When?
 
Unless you call explaining how 570 MPH at 0 MSL is an entirely achievable speed for a 767 "slander," I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nor do I care. Welcome to Ignore.

Best of luck with your search for the truth -- the real one. If you're very lucky, some day you may merely feel silly about what you used to believe.

I was referring to the moderator deleting your undisciplined remarks RM.

If the day you are referring to ever arrives, I'm sure your ego will be in greater pain than mine.

MM
 
MM can I assume that you think that ANYBODY, no matter how qualified, who doesn't think the WTC collapse are due to CD has only half a brain?
 
We are receiving a volume of complaints about this thread. I would be moving several posts to AAH, but at the moment they are needed where they are for a related matter.

Should this bickering continue, the thread will be set to moderated, and pruned for content.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Many of the problems of our post-literate society stem from the growing acceptability of hatred as a response. We "hate" an actor whose films are bad; we "hate" a co-worker whose opinions are valued higher than our own: we "hate" a politician with whose policies we disagree. It never occurs to many of us that rational people do not require intense emotion to undergird their judgments.

Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? Do you believe that his aim of dismantling al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was reprehensible because terrorist groups deserve to have a national base for their operations? If not, why the "hatred"? Do you believe that transforming Iraq into a liberal democracy that doesn't threaten its neighbors was an ignoble goal? If your only problems are with the ineffective and incompetently-applied methods to achieve that goal, again, why the hatred? Do you buy the fantasist idiocy that the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the murders of three thousand civilians, and the plunging of the national economy into recession served no higher purpose than lining the pockets of a few of Dick Cheney's cronies? If so, tell us why so many thousands chose to be complicit in the scheme. Were they compelled against their wills? Compelled by whom? What sort of invisible army can knock into line all the Democrats in the military, the FAA, FEMA, NIST, all the air traffic controllers, the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., all the forensic examiners, the Boeing Corporation, the seismologists, the independent researchers of ASCE, the media outlets that printed the names and seating positions of the hijackers--the list goes on. As every sane person recognizes at a glance, the whole conspiracy sand castle is a preposterous, lunatic fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense. Do you really believe it, or is it merely something you say reflexively? Who might the puppet-masters be? Did they surround Bill Clinton, whose policies and attitude differed sharply from Bush's? Will America's behavior toward terrorist groups in the Middle East change under a President Obama, or will he behave exactly the same as a President Giuliani? Is there an actual threat from radical Islam?

Your beliefs, as you have expressed them on this forum, appear unfalsifiable. You swallow uncritically a whole range of thoroughly discredited myths and you remain impervious to fact-based arguments. Is there any reason to regard your promotion of views that are unsupported by even a shred of evidence as anything but mindless "rage against the machine"?

Whoa man from Castle Dracula!

From what are you quoting?

You got your special "hate" rant speech going and you never looked to see if the starter's pistol went off.

" Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? "

Nope, I never said that. So you can take all the ranting that follows and recycle it somewhere else.

" Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense."

Okay, he's a well disguised genius and all round thoughtful president. There's no way he's not his own man. Everything he says and does is his own creation and anyone who has a contrary opinion better be wary of the savage and ruthless Bushy intellect. I love it. How could I have been so wrong pomeroo? Why that Bush is such a fox. He had me hook, line and sinker.

Sorry but that was most amusing but whenever I look I keep seeing Cheney's hand up Bush's *ss.

MM
 
MM can I assume that you think that ANYBODY, no matter how qualified, who doesn't think the WTC collapse are due to CD has only half a brain?

No.

I mean assume whatever you want but don't do it on my account.

Make sure you get Gravy's permission first.

MM
 
Miragememories, I posted a fairly long response to one of your posts. It asks several questions, all of which you will--as usual--ignore.

Let me ask one question that gets to the heart of all rationalist vs. fantasist confrontations:

R. Mackey is an extremely bright guy who happens to be a working scientist.

Your own intelligence is, at best, average and you manifestly have no background in science.

You presume to question him on matters that lie within his professional expertise, matters that you know little or nothing about.

Your conviction that you are right and he is wrong is unshakable.

Tell us why this counterintuitive state of affairs should prevail.

Two possibilities present themselves:

Mackey secretly agrees with you and is suppressing the truth. He offers only fallacious arguments and fabricates bogus evidence because he, a real scientist, can't be fooled.

Or...

All those years of training have gone to waste: Mackey is simply incapable of recognizing things that are obvious to you. Appearances to the contrary, you, and not the NASA engineer, actually have a firmer grasp of scientific principles.

Now, it all boils down to demonstrating why you are right and Mackey is wrong. We have seen many, many instances of Mackey exposing you as a fool and a liar. Tell us why we were deceived. Provide for us an unambiguous example of Mackey being demonstrably incorrect in some assertion he's made. State, as plainly as you can, what you know that he doesn't.

C'mon, don't always duck the tough questions. Show some cajones for once.
 
Whoa man from Castle Dracula!

From what are you quoting?


Your confusion is understandable. As someone who has no thoughts in his head, only empty slogans, you can't quite come to terms with an actual opinion that is not merely a temper tantrum.


You got your special "hate" rant speech going and you never looked to see if the starter's pistol went off.


Whoops! I'm afraid that too many of us will have noticed where you talk about "hating" Bush's handlers. The problem with being a conspiracy LIAR is that you start lying far too often. People notice.


" Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? "

Nope, I never said that. So you can take all the ranting that follows and recycle it somewhere else.



Ah, so your argument then becomes something like, I hate Bush's handlers, but not the policies they've implemented. Uh-huh. You hate THEM, but not the policies. Could you flesh out that concept for us? I fear that many of us think that you're lying again.


" Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense."

Okay, he's a well disguised genius and all round thoughtful president. There's no way he's not his own man. Everything he says and does is his own creation and anyone who has a contrary opinion better be wary of the savage and ruthless Bushy intellect. I love it. How could I have been so wrong pomeroo? Why that Bush is such a fox. He had me hook, line and sinker.


Fascinating. If we ignore your reflexive drivel and repeat my sentence, we find that your opinion is based on nothing. The people who actually know Bush disagree strongly with you, but, as those opinions are based on reality, you will continue to ignore them.


Sorry but that was most amusing but whenever I look I keep seeing Cheney's hand up Bush's *ss.

MM


You see much that isn't there. It's the millstone around your neck.

Yes, you're quite correct: my criticisms of your deranged fantasy were devastating. No one expected you to do anything but ignore them totally. Let me repeat:

Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.
 
You see much that isn't there. It's the millstone around your neck.

Yes, you're quite correct: my criticisms of your deranged fantasy were devastating. No one expected you to do anything but ignore them totally. Let me repeat:

Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

When you finish talking to the mirror..I'm over here.

MM
 
No, you cowardly ignoramus, I'm talking to YOU. Stop running and answer the questions.

Your imaginary conspiracy is absurdly bloated. IT CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

Show us where Mackey has been wrong about ANY scientific matter.

If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post. It isn't science, but it's another lie.
 
I would just like to take a moment to say thanks to R. Mackey for his assist in post #334 where he backed up my claim by citing the relevant posts by Miragememories.
 
Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM

Hey there, MM. I went over to LC a few months ago and tried to argue my point in the most polite way that I could imagine. I"m not sure where i went wrong, but I was eventually "Gone'd". Perhaps you could let me know why:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346

Why, because you were being "disingenuous" and had a "hidden agenda", of course! What does that mean in MM speech? It means you were banned for thinking differently than they do.

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).

Rather than seek my opinion why not ask a fellow JREFer who has around double my post count in the LC Forum and has been a defender of the OCT and the Nist report since he joined; "e^n".

He hasn't been banned in spite of his many provocative posts.

MM

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

I quoted every relevant post just so that everyone can see the gymnastics you must do to rationalize your original assertion.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? The leaders of your movement and the administrators of your forum actually are what you accuse us of being, and what you claim to be against. Notwithstanding the idea that stifling honest debate is intellectually dishonest, conspiracists seem to project this sort of behavior (among others) onto their opponents, rather unfairly.

No conspiracy theorist has ever been banned from this forum for being a conspiracy theorist. Can you say the same about skeptics and the Loose Change forum? How can you possibly stand by your original statement, honestly?
 
The problem with your posts Belz is they rarely contain anything worthy of, or showing any real expectation of a response.

After a while I assume you are mostly concerned with tossing out zingers rather than seeking any sincere dialogue.

Sincere dialogue ? You're claiming that every engineer, architect and building and demolition specialist in the world is kept silent by threats to their lives by shadowy operatives from the evil US government, and you're expecting sincerity ? Maybe you should practice what you preach.

But you can start by answering these:

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

MM said:
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.

MM said:
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.

MM said:
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.
 
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.

So many reasons why you don't have any evidence that they exist at all.

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.

It would also correspond to reality.

It's all "good" Gravy.

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

So you didn't read his post ?
 
You folks are either naive or on the payroll of those responsible for 9/11.

Despicable. Are you truly so ignorant, so self-absorbed and so idiotic as to think that the people who disagree with you are automatically paid by your imaginary enemy ? Really ? Or are you just lying, again ?

And this, after you said this:

If you honestly believe what you say, than you are being true to yourself. That's fair enough.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Indeed.

Well you sound like a good candidate.

Where were you on 9/11?

And this, after you said this:

After a while I assume you are mostly concerned with tossing out zingers rather than seeking any sincere dialogue.

You're just a troll, it seems.
 
If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post. It isn't science, but it's another lie.

Okay R.Mackey, here's a few of your lies:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82920&page=5
Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Actually Dr. Kausel says the radar results were 10% higher than his calculation (which is close enough to be considered "excellent agreement"). How interesting.
How interesting that you choose again to take his paper out of context. I believe that's called "cherry picking" or "lying".

The complete text from that portion of Dr. Kausel's paper was:

"The radar speeds are basically 10% larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed, during their final approach, the airplanes whose transponders had been disabled were flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (i.e. the height of impact), an altitude that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of flight prior to collision.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Nothing about his reservations was restricted to WTC 1.
The lies are yours my friend!

I never said exclusively WTC1. WTC2 was the subject of my post and WTC2 was the one Dr. Kausel said he could do his calculations with greater confidence. He had no issues with video standards (no PAL or SECAM video) as it was shot with the North American standard, NTSC. Virtually all of his issues were with SECAM or PAL which would have been referring to the Naudet video. His only issue that he referred to about the WTC 2 flight was some of the video shot in slow motion, hardly a major hindrance since most of the available footage was normal speed NTSC.

To quote Dr. Kausel yet again:

"The velocity of the two Boeing 767-200 planes that were crashed onto the Twin Towers is not precisely known, especially the speed of the North Tower plane."

"The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
I promised you some examples. Here they are:

First, China Airlines 006, a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.
Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Again you misrepresent the truth:

"The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet."

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Second, Egpyt Air 990 nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.
That speed achieved while diving to it's destruction, nose down in a deliberate gravity-assisted crash initiated by the relief officer, hardly compares to the relatively level flight of the 767 that struck WTC 2.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey
As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.
What a big lie that is! As the long shot video clearly shows, UA-175 was fying relatively level in the last mile as it closed in on WTC2. It was certainly not in a power dive!

8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg



Oh and regarding your most recent lie:

If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post. It isn't science, but it's another lie.

AutoModAction

Hi Miragememories,

The post that you created in the following thread has been deleted

-----
Post ID: [quote=R.Mackey;2652792]Correct as usual.
"Edited by Lisa Simpson: Inappropriate remark removed."
I've been pimp-sl...
Thread: NIST misrepresented WTC2 fire conditions
Reason: quoting deleted part of post
-----

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

Regards,
JREF FORUM Moderating Team





Cough cough. Ahh you were saying R. Mackey??


MM
 
What a big lie that is! As the long shot video clearly shows, UA-175 was fying relatively level in the last mile as it closed in on WTC2. It was certainly not in a power dive!

You're saying that the plane was NOT diving at 10,000 feet per minute? Maybe you should do the math and find out what the slope of descent would be, even at your conservative speed of 540 mph.
 
You're saying that the plane was NOT diving at 10,000 feet per minute? Maybe you should do the math and find out what the slope of descent would be, even at your conservative speed of 540 mph.

Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg


Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?


MM
 

Back
Top Bottom