• 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.

Call for Nominations: Truth Movement's Best Posts

R.Mackey

Philosopher
R
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
7,854
Dear JREF 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posters,

I've never been happy with the signal-to-noise ratio of this subforum. Therefore, I humbly ask your help with my latest attempt to improve discourse.

Simply put, I am looking for nominations for the best posts made by folks in the Truth Movement. Give me links to posts that either showed you something new, unearthed new facts or valuable information, or demonstrated keen insight and clever reasoning.

I am dead serious. This is not the Stundies, which I do not participate in or encourage. Instead, I seek to acknowledge the contributions that do come from the Truth Movement, and hopefully elevate them so that others can find them, appreciate them, and ultimately carry out a more useful and less contentious discussion.

It is all too easy to write off the Truth Movement en masse, given the many silly or bizarre statements we read here, but generalization is bad, mmm'kay? This kind of thinking simply isn't fair. Over the years I've actually learned a number of things from the Truth Movement. I've had productive conversations with Gregory Urich, Childlike Empress, heck, even Max Photon had a good thread once in a while.

That's what I'd like to capture. This is where you come in:

  • Please link to, and include a relevant excerpt of, the best post or posts you've seen from the Truth Movement.
  • Recent posts are preferred. If this is successful, we may wish to continue the experiment, and go month by month.
  • Do not bicker. I mean it.
  • Self-nominations are encouraged. If you're in or sympathetic to the Truth Movement, what is your personal best?
  • For those I have on Ignore, I will check your submissions. I will be delighted if you show me I was wrong to put you there in the first place.
  • This is not the Stundies and I do not plan to hold awards. Any valuable contribution is a good one. I'll go by the Ebert System, thumbs up / down.
  • While some analysis of submissions is anticipated, lengthy discussion is off-topic and should be carried out in their original threads.
Fair enough? I know there's some good thoughts out there. Let's see if we can't clean it up together.
 
The Mackeys....has a nice ring to it ;)

I'll be on the lookout, but I've seen nothing recently that fits your requirements.
 
I haven't read all of the NIST WTC 7 report yet, so I have no idea if this lunatic was on to something. I just hope that thread stays dead.

Christopher7 said:
Will you address the fraud in the final report?

[FONT=&quot]There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The girder collapses twice.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] NIST deleted key words from a paragraph in the NIST L report in order to claim the absence of shear studs on the girder between columns 79 and 44. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] NIST brought the temperatures of the beams and girder up to 600[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C and 500[/FONT][FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C respectively, over their entire length in less than 2 seconds.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]NIST did not include the expansion of the floor slab in their calculations for the computer model that showed the shear studs on the beams failing. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]* * * * *[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 487 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][149][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][see pg 33 Tech Brief] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 525[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [187][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [to the west][/FONT][FONT=&quot], it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][397 on pg counter][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436°C, shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to the collapse of the floor system, and rocking the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27 (b)" [to the east][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf[/FONT]

Edited by chillzero: 
Uncited Source = http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10699
[FONT=&quot]

Trimmed for Rule 4.


* * * * *
[FONT=&quot]3)NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24. Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.[/FONT]
Click to expand...


And a truther's biggest contribution to my learning experience...

RedIbis said:
I have learned in my experience here that the more precise and specific your post is the less you will receive any semblance of discourse.

The regulars tend to seize upon the goofier aspects of the so called Truth movement. This is likely to be left untouched, unless they chime in with a few cheap shots.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The above is confusion about structural modeling technique. Those kinds of questions could lead to a productive discussion, but asserting they are wrong (or deceptive) does not. I'm afraid that's short of what I'm looking for.
 
David Chandler signed up for one comment and left. Came around some time later to post comment #2 with a much more angry tone. Could've lead to something productive, I still have a lot to learn about WTC 7.

davidschandler48 said:
The final NIST report on WTC7 concedes freefall (acceleration at 9.81 m/s^2) for ~2.25 seconds. They re-did the analysis and tracked a point midway along the roofline of the building. My analysis followed the NW corner of the building. The fact that two points so widely spaced underwent simultaneous freefall with instantaneous onset indicates that support was knocked out across a major portion, if not all, of the building for at least 8 stories. There are another 8 stories, by the way, where resistance was minimal. The velocity didn't stabilize until it was descending at ~30 m/s. NIST was forced to revisit the issue because their own analysis (two data points to find an average acceleration over an interval in which there was not constant acceleration) was so transparently fraudulent. (i.e. the NIST coverup).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That's much closer to the mark. You'll note that Russell was correct, albeit the discrepancy in news reports had been detected by the "mainstream" investigations already, and the time discrepancy didn't lead to any obvious conflicts in the storyline. But nonetheless, he was right, a lot of us didn't know that, and some jumped the gun to holler at him.

A similar thing happened with Craig Furlong who noted the discrepancy of ~ 12 seconds in the 9/11 Commission vs. NIST aircraft impact times. The discrepancy turned out to be real, and revealed something about the sloppy nature of the initial impact time estimate, if my analysis was correct.

This is a good start. The point is that the Truth Movement is not always wrong, and good information sometimes gets lost in the noise. Let's keep them coming.
 
This post by Childlike Empress.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302899&postcount=131

It is very well put together, logic and backed by facts. It is one of the few posts that as actually changed my opinion ,on this particular aspect. I have no problem conceding a point and if the TM could string together more posts like this then I guess I would take more notice of them. As it is, from what I see posts like this are few and far between.

When people continually shout "INSIDE JOB", followed by the usual torrent of "Government loyalists, sheeple, blah, blah", it makes zero impact. But when somebody actually states something in a rational,civil manner and backs it up with evidence, it really can impact.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
<snip>
Give me links to posts that either showed you something new, unearthed new facts or valuable information, or demonstrated keen insight and clever reasoning.

I am dead serious. This is not the Stundies, which I do not participate in or encourage. Instead, I seek to acknowledge the contributions that do come from the Truth Movement, and hopefully elevate them so that others can find them, appreciate them, and ultimately carry out a more useful and less contentious discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes, i'd like to nominate Sizzler's involvment in this thread - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109196

I thought his posts made for good discussion, and he attempted to answer the questions put to him, the best he could. Good sense of humour, too. I have a lot of time for this guy.

I agree about Max Photon - it's a shame to not see him around much because i actually enjoy his threads.

I like RedIbis too. I believe we could have better discussion here if these guys/girls weren't attacked as much. Not saying that everyone does it, but there are a number of instances of attacking the arguer, as opposed to the argument. Which i'm sure these guys find a bit frustrating when they're trying to make a point (regardless of whether they're right or wrong), particularly as they would feel a bit outnumbered. (Tried posting on the LCF?)

Maybe i'm wrong, just my opinion:)
 
Several posts split to a new thread. Please respect the OP's wish to keep this thread dedicated to nominations, not bickering.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
stateofgrace said:
This post by Childlike Empress.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302899&postcount=131

It is very well put together, logic and backed by facts. It is one of the few posts that as actually changed my opinion ,on this particular aspect. I have no problem conceding a point and if the TM could string together more posts like this then I guess I would take more notice of them. As it is, from what I see posts like this are few and far between
Click to expand...

I agree. As you know if you've ever been accused of being a "Bush Loyalist," sometimes our politics aren't that different. There are definitely cases where the US Government exploited Sept. 11th for selfish gains, and others where it played legal games that were ultimately counter-productive and dangerous to civil liberties, and these are important topics for discussion. This, of course, doesn't mean "inside job," and bad science distracts heavily from needed investigation of policy.

This earns my personal Thumbs Up: :thumbsup:

alex04 said:
Yes, i'd like to nominate Sizzler's involvment in this thread - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109196
Click to expand...

Another good one. I think Sizzler is almost the only one to actually attempt a coherent hypothesis, and to come clean about the problems he encountered. Definitely an act to follow. :thumbsup:

Tricky said:
[mod surface action]
Click to expand...

Well, that didn't take long... Thanks for the assist.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Dear JREF 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posters,

I've never been happy with the signal-to-noise ratio of this subforum. Therefore, I humbly ask your help with my latest attempt to improve discourse.

Simply put, I am looking for nominations for the best posts made by folks in the Truth Movement. Give me links to posts that either showed you something new, unearthed new facts or valuable information, or demonstrated keen insight and clever reasoning.

I am dead serious. This is not the Stundies, which I do not participate in or encourage. Instead, I seek to acknowledge the contributions that do come from the Truth Movement, and hopefully elevate them so that others can find them, appreciate them, and ultimately carry out a more useful and less contentious discussion.

It is all too easy to write off the Truth Movement en masse, given the many silly or bizarre statements we read here, but generalization is bad, mmm'kay? This kind of thinking simply isn't fair. Over the years I've actually learned a number of things from the Truth Movement. I've had productive conversations with Gregory Urich, Childlike Empress, heck, even Max Photon had a good thread once in a while.

That's what I'd like to capture. This is where you come in:

  • Please link to, and include a relevant excerpt of, the best post or posts you've seen from the Truth Movement.
  • Recent posts are preferred. If this is successful, we may wish to continue the experiment, and go month by month.
  • Do not bicker. I mean it.
  • Self-nominations are encouraged. If you're in or sympathetic to the Truth Movement, what is your personal best?
  • For those I have on Ignore, I will check your submissions. I will be delighted if you show me I was wrong to put you there in the first place.
  • This is not the Stundies and I do not plan to hold awards. Any valuable contribution is a good one. I'll go by the Ebert System, thumbs up / down.
  • While some analysis of submissions is anticipated, lengthy discussion is off-topic and should be carried out in their original threads.
Fair enough? I know there's some good thoughts out there. Let's see if we can't clean it up together.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Brainster said:
...

Jim Hoffman took on the same task.
Click to expand...
Hoffman’s work does offer some evidence to debunk dumb 9/11 truth statements and ideas.

Hoffman's article also has many errors. One example is the spiral turn from 7000 feet, he over estimates the G force and could have dug deeper to use the FDR. But he stops because he is not really interested in the truth, but he is more interested in maintaining his paranoid anti-something stand. And he says so.
Conclusion
In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.
Click to expand...
Hoffman’s work usually has good references to debunk 9/11 truth, if that is the definition of Best Posts by 911Truth, then some of Hoffman’s work does lead to great facts and the seeds to debunk 911Truth and Hoffman’s own paranoid conclusions.

I have used Hoffman’s work to debunk 911Truth since I first heard 911Truth idiotic ideas spewing from people who lack knowledge. I usually use this personally as I read and research privately.

So I encourage anyone looking for references to debunk and build posts to debunk 911Truth to use Hoffman’s work, correct his errors with further research, and use the references he has provided to support and develop rebuttals to other 911Truth false ideas. Even Jones does this in some of his work, he includes sources to help you debunk his ideas.
 
Brainster said:
The Truthers' best posts have usually come when they are debunking a portion of the conspiracy theory that they don't personally agree with.
Catherder's post on the Pentagon is perhaps the finest example.
Jim Hoffman took on the same task.
Adam Larson, aka Caustic Logic, has done excellent work on the CIT/Pentacon boys.
Click to expand...

Somewhere, (I can't find the link) in a rare moment of lucidity, Ace Baker did a fine demolition of Hutchisons "Effect", totally exposing Judy Woods' madness. I find it very puzzling how truthers can be so blatantly selective in applying rational, reasoned thinking to debunking.

BV
 
bonavada said:
Somewhere, (I can't find the link) in a rare moment of lucidity, Ace Baker did a fine demolition of Hutchisons "Effect", totally exposing Judy Woods' madness. I find it very puzzling how truthers can be so blatantly selective in applying rational, reasoned thinking to debunking.

BV
Click to expand...
The Hutchinson effect is not a 9/11 CT. If other fields are good, I am sure somewhere there was an innocuous post made about general physics (not related to 9/11) made by the high school teacher David Chandler.
 
~enigma~ said:
The Hutchinson effect is not a 9/11 CT
Click to expand...

Agreed. But Judy Wood postulated it may have been demonstrated on 9-11 at the WTC.
Ace Baker aptly explained Huchisons parlour tricks (somewhere, I'll dig out the link)

BV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom