• 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.

JONES Religious Studies Prof Takes on Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts... Poorly

JamesB

Master Poster
JamesB
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
2,152
Apparently it is going to take the entire roster of Jones' group to even come up with a poor rebutal of Mackey's paper.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

But let us turn to the third statement I listed in my summary of Mackey’s argument. Is it true that FDNY members rationally concluded from what they perceived that the building was in danger of collapse? Only seven appear to have done so, whereas 50 accepted the collapse prediction from others, typically superiors.

With regard to the fourth point in the argument, is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases.
Click to expand...
 
So not only was the FDNY in on it, but they were also too incompetent to know the things they had been trained too know?

Some patriot.
 
Another one?

sheesh. I just got done putting the wraps on a response for Kevin Ryan. It's like an inexhaustible mine of error...

v2.0 is projected within a week. This character, whomever he is, will have to wait for v2.1, along with Jim Hoffman. I guess my whitepaper unsettled them even more than I anticipated.
 
Graeme MacQueen is the idiot who wrote the "118 witnesses" paper, also posted at JONES. I comment about it here. I like how he says he understands Mackey's reasoning regarding the WTC 7 witnesses better than mine. Um, my reasoning consists of, "Here are the eyewitness accounts. Read them."
 
Last edited:
I retract my comment above.

I will not be responding to this newest "criticism." Anyone who reads all that will probably be even more inclined to agree with me than they were before, unless he is barking mad to begin with. :D

Seriously, was there a case in there??
 
Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.

*snicker
 
That was one strange paper. No need to respond to that :p
 
But if this is the case, how did the notion of total collapse arise in the first place?​

The FDNY oral testimonies do not give a satisfactory answer to this question.
Click to expand...


Could it possibly have been the fact that the FDNY had just seen two steel-framed skyscrapers collapse, thereby establishing something of a precedent? Or does that possibility have to be excluded because it would undermine the entire premise of the paper?

Dave

ETA: Ah, I see. The collapse of WTC1 & 2 can be excluded as a reasonable precedent for the collapse of WTC7, because the collapse of WTC1 & 2 was itself suspicious. Therefore, suspicion concerning the collapse of WTC7, which is presented as the "smoking gun" which casts suspicion on the collapses of WTC1 & 2, is itself conditional on that latter suspicion already having been established, despite the fact that even a covert controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2 would establish a strong presumption in the minds of the FDNY that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. The entire paper is therefore founded on a line of argument that is both circular, and a non-sequitur.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:


Could it possibly have been the fact that the FDNY had just seen two steel-framed skyscrapers collapse, thereby establishing something of a precedent? Or does that possibility have to be excluded because it would undermine the entire premise of the paper?

Dave

ETA: Ah, I see. The collapse of WTC1 & 2 can be excluded as a reasonable precedent for the collapse of WTC7, because the collapse of WTC1 & 2 was itself suspicious. Therefore, suspicion concerning the collapse of WTC7, which is presented as the "smoking gun" which casts suspicion on the collapses of WTC1 & 2, is itself conditional on that latter suspicion already having been established, despite the fact that even a covert controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2 would establish a strong presumption in the minds of the FDNY that collapse of WTC7 was a possibility. The entire paper is therefore founded on a line of argument that is both circular, and a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

I KNEW that was a circular argument. I just couldn't word it right, and you've done it marvelously. Thank you.
 
Gravy said:
Graeme MacQueen is the idiot who wrote the "118 witnesses" paper, also posted at JONES. I comment about it here. I like how he says he understands Mackey's reasoning regarding the WTC 7 witnesses better than mine. Um, my reasoning consists of, "Here are the eyewitness accounts. Read them."
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is clearly flawed. We have ample evidence that a significant percentage of the "truth movement" is incapable of reading and therefore relies on YouTube videos for their information. If you were to narrate the eyewitness accounts (perhaps with some sort of sock puppets) then your work would become accessible to them.
 
R.Mackey said:
I retract my comment above.

I will not be responding to this newest "criticism." Anyone who reads all that will probably be even more inclined to agree with me than they were before, unless he is barking mad to begin with. :D

Seriously, was there a case in there??
Click to expand...

Yes. It pointed out your error/s in your paper.
 
But let us turn to the third statement I listed in my summary of Mackey’s argument. Is it true that FDNY members rationally concluded from what they perceived that the building was in danger of collapse? Only seven appear to have done so, whereas 50 accepted the collapse prediction from others, typically superiors.
Click to expand...

So I guess the author is only implicating seven FDNY along with their superiors (namely Chief of operations Daniel Nigro) as having forknowledge of WTC7's demolition.

I love watching twoofers struggle to explain this FDNY knowledge without including the FDNY in the conspiracy. Alex Jones sure as hell couldn't do it!
 
"Many proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis take these cases, both written and video, as evidence that the building’s collapse was brought about deliberately. How could people have suspected or even known with certainty hours in advance that the building was going to collapse if this collapse was not under human control?"

I assume that this is what we call a Stundie, is it not? Oh Dr. Jones and friends, your abandonment of any pretense of scientific analysis is laughable.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Yes. It pointed out your error/s in your paper.
Click to expand...

Where? I didn't see any pointing out of errors of Mackey's paper. All I saw was a bunch of accusing the FDNY of being incompetent and/or in on it without proof.
 
I went through something similar with Gravy before. The oral histories are presented by Mackey and Gravy to suggest that all FDNY on the scene had determined the bldg would collapse, when after reading through the histories, and as this paper points out, most of the accounts recall being told that the bldg would come down.

I think MacQueen should add in his paper that word came down from the OEM.
 
RedIbis said:
I went through something similar with Gravy before. The oral histories are presented by Mackey and Gravy to suggest that all FDNY on the scene had determined the bldg would collapse, when after reading through the histories, and as this paper points out, most of the accounts recall being told that the bldg would come down.
Click to expand...

By who?
 
How does being told something by bosses or colleagues invalidate that something? Speaking as a historian -- yeah, published, all that jazz -- it doesn't.

Legally, I couldn't say.

In a sense, you are arguing a distinction without a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom