• 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

Red, I'll take your silence as proof that you don't want to address the evidence.

Oh well...
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
lol...sorry, I worded it poorly I guess.

Red:

1. My impression of the comments you have made about the testimonies, and comments about where the word of the collapse may have come from, is that you feel some elements within the OEM and/or FDNY had forknowledge of a collapse, because they were part of a scheme to intentionally bring down the building. Of course, my impressions could be wrong, and I am more than open to a comment from you indicating I am wrong, and explaining your official position on it, for clarification.

2. I am not expecting names, as I know that will open up the same kettle of fish you got into about Gen. Myers...and it will go nowhere.

3. If your opinion on the testimonies is that you have NO opinion, then fine, we have nothing more to argue here.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

1. In this particular thread I just wanted to make the point that most of the firefighters were told that the bldg would collapse, not that they all concluded that on their own.

2. Since Myers keeps getting brought up in this thread, I'll address this once and respect the rules of the forum. The guy went to a tea party (literally, a tea party) instead of advising the president when the country was under attack. End of story.

3. Well, you know what they say about opinions. Sure, I have some opinions and hypotheses, theories, etc. But why push that in this thread? The reaction I've gotten here is to address the implication. Do you not see the origins of the widespread knowledge of the collapse, as different from a widespread belief?
 
Pardalis said:
Red, I'll take your silence as proof that you don't want to address the evidence.

Oh well...
Click to expand...

Patience. I feel like I'm getting jumped by a gang of nerds in the library. No offense, I am very much a nerd about many things.
 
And in response I'd say:

1/ So what? And also: to support your position you should interview the firefighters, beyond the existing statements. Most of them are presumably still available.

2/ There is a distinct, continuous methodology between your Myers comments and the present case. I've addressed this above, and won't go into it again.

3/ Much of the frustration expressed towards you is that you seem to be unwilling to address anything clearly or directly. Come on, how can it hurt? As the cartoon said, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. Just up and state it. Your feelings may get hurt (or may not), but so what?
 
RedIbis said:
1. In this particular thread I just wanted to make the point that most of the firefighters were told that the bldg would collapse, not that they all concluded that on their own.

3. Well, you know what they say about opinions. Sure, I have some opinions and hypotheses, theories, etc. But why push that in this thread? The reaction I've gotten here is to address the implication. Do you not see the origins of the widespread knowledge of the collapse, as different from a widespread belief?
Click to expand...

RedIbis; I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make - but it is relatively small.

In the absolute chaos, mayhem and carnage of that day - a ***** incredible experience I would hope we never have to go through - the firefighters would continue on fighting in the face of it all - regardless of what they thought - it takes one man at the top of the chain of command to order them out. They are like soldiers in that respect; you keep on doing what you're doing until the CoC makes a decision either way. Again, only my opinion and thoughts, but is it hard to imagine a firefighter in the thick of it thinking, "***** - this place is gonna drop soon; we'll be getting pulled out soon...' but still carrying on regardless, waiting for the order?

Basically the majority of them probably knew/suspected the building was coming down, but cracked on until ordered to pull out by the man qualified to make the decision- that's what they do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Ditto TAM on points 1 & 4.

RedIbis, although you have the whiff of 'twoof' about you, you have a healthy amount of respect on the forum considering your views; I personally believe that you could quite emphatically and openly state your opinions on here without getting savaged too much. The only thing that frustrates people (I think) is your unwillingness at times to answer direct questions directly, and the lack of justification (or bizarre justification) for your opinions.

But that's just what I think...
Click to expand...

Sort of a backhanded compliment, but I'll take it just the same. If I get any respect in here or kind words in PMs, which I do, I think it's because I have no ill spirit toward anyone. I entered this whole thing rather unexpectedly. I honestly had no reason to doubt the official story until someone handed me some info. That began a three year research journey. I am genuinely curious, open minded and thorough about my research.

You're proving to be a calm and reasonable voice with a good sense of humor. And there other great researchers here who are also friendly and persuasive, even if we disagree. But there are also very extreme and angry individuals, some named, some not, who attack anyone offering alternative viewpoints. I will not resort to the type of angry, subjective, indignant "analysis" that Gravy produces. That's popular here, but it's far from academic discourse.
 
I think Gravy is tired of refuting the same points over and over, and perhaps being held aloft as a mascot or punchbag by either side. Doesn't excuse his sometime brusque attitude, but helps you understand it!
 
I'm still waiting for your point, Red.

You know...the hypothetical OEM knowledge of WTC7s collapse. Any idea what that means?
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
I think Gravy is tired of refuting the same points over and over,
Click to expand...
Quite true. That's why I created my website, but it gets very little use.

and perhaps being held aloft as a mascot or punchbag by either side.
Click to expand...
That the truthers focus on me rather than the information I provide simply shows how bankrupt their claims are. I'm quite happy to rub it in their faces that the claims of all their best and brightest are easily destroyed by a tour guide.

Doesn't excuse his sometime brusque attitude, but helps you understand it!
Click to expand...
My brusque attitude is directed at people who remain deliberately ignorant, and sometimes at those who continue to engage with them long past hoping that the ignoramus or lurkers will benefit. It pains me to see so many intelligent people wasting their time on a proven incompetent and serial liar like RedIbis. Folks, he's this way because he wants to be.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
This is the essence of the strawman fallacy. You guys want to talk about controlled demolition, accustations and implications. I'm only responding to the OP, MacQueen's analysis and Gravy and Mackey's analyses.
Click to expand...

Ok.

So do you accept that at least SOME of the firefighters expected the building to collapse? That seems like a pretty on-topic question.
 
RedIbis said:
Sort of a backhanded compliment, but I'll take it just the same. If I get any respect in here or kind words in PMs, which I do, I think it's because I have no ill spirit toward anyone. I entered this whole thing rather unexpectedly. I honestly had no reason to doubt the official story until someone handed me some info. That began a three year research journey. I am genuinely curious, open minded and thorough about my research.

You're proving to be a calm and reasonable voice with a good sense of humor. And there other great researchers here who are also friendly and persuasive, even if we disagree. But there are also very extreme and angry individuals, some named, some not, who attack anyone offering alternative viewpoints. I will not resort to the type of angry, subjective, indignant "analysis" that Gravy produces. That's popular here, but it's far from academic discourse.
Click to expand...

You are certainly far more civil than the average Truther, and I respect that. I try to be a "friendly debunker", but I do lose my cool pretty easily these days. I'm sorry if I've been pissy today.

I think you'll find it's not that hard to get respect around here, as long as you make it very clear what you actually believe. Compare, for instance, the way Max Photon is treated vs. the way LastChild is treated.
 
I disagree with 1337. I don't think people should be respected simply because they can state what they believe, although that's a step up from those who won't. The respect comes when the beliefs are shown to be justified. Osama bin Laden is extremely calm in his messages to us, states his case clearly, and appears to be competent and a man of his word, but he hasn't earned my respect.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
I will not resort to the type of angry, subjective, indignant "analysis" that Gravy produces. That's popular here, but it's far from academic discourse.
Click to expand...
Red won't resort to any rational analysis at all. When reality conflicts with his beliefs, he sides with his beliefs every time. Note that in the thread devoted to my errors, Red was unable to do anything but whine.

Being publicly, deliberately ignorant, and wasting peoples' time by repeatedly making false claims, as he does about the FDNY, is immature and rude, no matter how calmly it's done.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Red won't resort to any rational analysis at all. When reality conflicts with his beliefs, he sides with his beliefs every time. Note that in the thread devoted to my errors, Red was unable to do anything but whine.

Being publicly, deliberately ignorant, and wasting peoples' time by repeatedly making false claims, as he does about the FDNY, is immature and rude, no matter how calmly it's done.
Click to expand...

In the thread devoted to your errors, you started off with an error I brought to your attention, then at many points your errors and subjective interpretation was pointed out.

Now, I'm a serial liar, yet you cannot point out any lies.You'd be a more persuasive researcher if you dropped the indignation and anger.
 
1337m4n said:
Ok.

So do you accept that at least SOME of the firefighters expected the building to collapse? That seems like a pretty on-topic question.
Click to expand...

Yes, at least some members of the FDNY did expect collapse.
 
RedIbis said:
. . . . then at many points your errors and subjective interpretation was pointed out./QUOTE]

C'mon RedIbis, we are not going to let you get away with that. And each one of those so called errors was debunked.

Now lets get back on topic: this pathetic paper that serves as scholarly analysis to Troothers.

I am waiting for evidence that any Firefighter disagreed with the assessment that WTC7 was unstable and likely to collapse.
Click to expand...
 
chillzero said:
This is actually untrue. RedIbis pointed out one error that Gravy responded to.
Click to expand...
Not in the thread I'm referring to. And I thanked RedIbis for the correction he made. Has he thanked us for correcting his constant errors and lies, and made sure not to repeat them? Of course not: that would violate the truthseeker's code.
 
Gravy said:
Not in the thread I'm referring to. And I thanked RedIbis for the correction he made. Has he thanked us for correcting his constant errors and lies, and made sure not to repeat them? Of course not: that would violate the truthseeker's code.
Click to expand...

What constant errors and lies? You haven't been able to list any. Is there some edict in your code that says you must include some variation of the word "lie" in every post? You appear committed to avoiding friendly, productive discourse and keep maintaining invective and hyperbole.
 
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...
Macqueen points out obvious flaws in logic in Mackey's paper or just plain mistakes:

Mackey, "• Fires were considered a threat to the building’s structural integrity"

Macqueen,"This is incorrect. In the 60
cases of collapse warning, the great majority of FDNY members do not report that they
thought fire was a threat to the building’s structural integrity."

Seems Mackey is drawing conclusions based on something other than the firefighters words.
Macqueen, "That most FDNY members seem to have accepted both the collapse warnings and
the collapses themselves with few questions appears to be true and deserves to be
discussed. But Mackey overstates his case and thereby weakens it.
As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses
as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that
basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great
majority of witnesses accepted that Seven was going to collapse because they were told
that it was going to collapse."

Which is different than majority of firefighters making observations and concluding that damage is so bad the building will collapse. How & why did Mackey jump to this conclusion?
 
Gravy said:
Not in the thread I'm referring to. And I thanked RedIbis for the correction he made. Has he thanked us for correcting his constant errors and lies, and made sure not to repeat them? Of course not: that would violate the truthseeker's code.
Click to expand...

OK, sorry - I was reacting more to tackling assertions that happen on both sides. One side often seems to think you never make mistakes, and the other that you never acknowledge them.

I know both are untrue, so I reacted on that premise, rather than checking what thread was referred to. :blush:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom