My First Ever Banning

[Miragememories]

HAHAHA!

Only a truther could possibly think that way. An assassin in every neighborhood in the world, I guess.

Incidently, your post is still mere rhetoric. You just throw away claims and expect some of them to stick.


Gosh, Mirage. You'd swear you're ignoring everything I said in my previous posts. What's the problem ? It seems to me like you're ignoring all the ones with arguments.

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.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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

 

[Miragememories]

I do not respect anyone in the 9/11 truth movement because they are liars. When they make up, or repeat the truth movement ideas, they are telling lies. Zero respect goes to those who tell lies and make up stuff about 9/11. I think they are the most doltish group of people when it comes to 9/11 issues. I have found the main purpose of the 9/11 truth movement is to sell lies in the form of books, and video. We live in a free country and it is legal to sell lies and make up stuff and sell it as the truth. If you do not want to be called on of the nuts and dolts for 9/11 truth, then use your head and stop thinking in the box of 9/11 lies.

Outside the box. Wow, the truth movement is the most inside the box group I have seen. I am probably more like what the truthers want to be, than any truther is. I do not believe anyone. I do not trust anyone unless the earn it. I do not like being told what to think or do. I hate rules made up with no good reason. I hate liars who lie to others to make profit. The truth movement is made up of non thinking followers who think they are thinking outside the box. They think they have open minds, they think they have the correct ideas on 9/11 but avoid looking at the facts. Why is the truth movement so much like the things they say they are against?

I find the entire truth movement to be people buying and selling lies. That makes some of them not too smart, and the others smart capitalist. The smart ones are selling the very lies the not too smart ones want. Throw in some idealistic dummies who think they are saving the world and some pure idiots who have gone nuts over some political bias that blinds their ability to think logically. The list of truther traits must have many more entries, but this is a good start.

beachnut you must be some kind of fool if you feel that way about people attached to the 9/11 Truth Movement, yet you still continue to correspond with them.

I usually disagree with your views and that of the majority here, but I certainly don't see you folks as being 100% BLACK the way you declare all of us.

JREF is filled with individuals and so is the 9/11 Truth Movement. Neither side is unanimous in it's beliefs. Both sides have a range of people ranging from extremists to moderates. That's the nature of ALL volunteer movements.

The worst liars are those like yourself, who insist on painting everyone with the same black brush.

I'm not so locked into my point of view that I've let it poison me against the views of others.

Believe it or not, I've learned a lot here and listen when the content isn't soaked in personal vitriol and bias.

It's a relief to know that my mind hasn't become crippled by hate like yours appears to be.

MM

 

[Calcas]

Believe it or not, I've learned a lot here and listen when the content isn't soaked in personal vitriol and bias.

I'm curious. What have you learned here that has changed your mind about what happened regarding 9-11?

 

[rwguinn]

I fear you miss the point:the structural issues, and in particular the recognition in the Eurocode of the dangers posed by progressive collapse, are germaine to the discussion at hand. Therefore it is reasonable that we consider them. Digital codecs are not, as far as I am aware.

And ulike the poster in question, you never claimed expertise in an area you are unfamiliar with, nor have you claimed that people who are expert in those areas are full of recycled alfalfa.

 

[Gravy]

I'm not so locked into my point of view that I've let it poison me against the views of others.

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.

 

[Miragememories]

What a laugh. This guy doesn't know the difference between lies and honesty, between baseless accusations and evidence, between research and uninformed opinion, or between making the same mistakes over and over without learning, and correcting those mistakes.

Poor MM! Can't a person just make unfounded accusations of mass murder without being taken to task?

Maybe when MM gets some time he'll show us what we got wrong, and admit his continual string of errors.

No, they're just nasty, incompetent ignoramuses.

News flash: tour guide is not a prestigious occupation, and relying on ad hominems instead of facts is foolish. Not a single debunker here has pulled rank without backing their statements with facts.

He and his entire club of liars can't argue the facts, so they've decided to advance their cause by whining. That's childish behavior.

...and the twoof goes marching on. OJ ws framed!

Meanwhile....

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

 

[Horatius]

Sorry C. You are mostly wrong! Canadian Tire is the largest tenant of 2180 but not the sole tenant. I am quite sure the building is 22 stories but that's not something I've given any thought to recently.

2190 is certainly not a 6-story building and I know for a fact that it has been there as long as 2180.

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

You may be correct about 2200 Yonge, it's commercial on the ground and sub basement and largely apartments above.

MM

Well, you'd better go edit Wiki then:

Buildings

[edit] 2200 Yonge Street

2200 Yonge Street was built in 1962 with 17 floors and 259,397 square feet of space. It is located directly over the TTC's Eglinton subway station and has connecting passages to the station as well as to the Yonge Eglinton Centre across the street.

Major tenant:

* TTC

[edit] 2190 Yonge Street

2190 Yonge Street was built in 1987 with 6 floors and 151,021 square feet of space.

Major tenants:

* Canadian Tire head office
* P & T Communications
* Cornerstone Group
* Canadian Unicef Committee
* TVO

[edit] 2180 Yonge Street

2180 Yonge Street was built in 1972 with 18 floors and 402,277 square feet of space.

Major tenants include:

* Canadian Tire
* Cineplex Odeon
* TVO
* Independent Learning Centre

ETA: Not too mention, these folks would probably be interested where their other floors went.

 

[Gravy]

I'm curious. What have you learned here that has changed your mind about what happened regarding 9-11?

That the towers may have been brought down by nuclear weapons, of course. Thank Ed that our constant pushing of this theory has had an effect.

The problem with micro nukes is that were getting into the area of top secret technology.

All we can do is speculate and provide fuel for the skeptics in the process.

Personally, I think if such a beast truly exists, the implosions of WTC 1 and 2 certainly look like micro nukes in the cores.

I doubt any thermite cutter charges would survive such an event so it's an all or nothing situation.

MM, May, 2007

 

[Gravy]

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

 

[Miragememories]

I call it the "Canadian Tire building" because that is how it is colloquially known because of the big Canadian Tire logo on the top. Like First Canadian Place is known colloquially as the "Bank of Montreal building," like the tower at 40 King is known as the "Scotia Bank building" and like Commerce Court West is known as the "CIBC building".

I am not at all implying that Canadian Tire is its only tenant. Far from it.

However, Emporis is a very good source for building info, and it happens to coincide perfectly with the information provided by the property management company responsible for leasing out the available space in the Canada Square buildings.

I dare say that they know far more about the details of the buildings they manage than you do. And they say that the information I posted above is correct, and that your unsupported assertions to the contrary are incorrect.

http://www.northamrealty.com/assetPortfolio/2180yonge.shtml

http://www.northamrealty.com/assetPortfolio/2190yonge.shtml

http://www.northamrealty.com/assetPortfolio/2200yonge.shtml

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=canadiantirebuilding-toronto-canada

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/sh/?id=100993&txt=2200+yonge&button=Search

It is noted on Emporis that all completed high-rise buildings in Toronto with 12 or more floors are listed in this database.

2190 Yonge is not listed. That would appear to be because it is only 6 stories tall.

So, tell me, how did you manage to be on the 22nd floor of a building that is only 18 storeys tall?



Oh, the irony.

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

 

[twinstead]

"pathetic creative efforts" is exactly what someone would say if these efforts that rational people applaud as excellent made members of their 'movement' look like idiots.

 

[Miragememories]

Do you honestly think that if the internet had existed during Hitler's Germany that still nobody would have 'spoken up'? Do you think that perhaps other nations' citizens were indeed speaking up about Hitler's Germany during that period?

You can spin away however you want to explain why nobody has come forward to expose what you think is a MOST obvious hoax. The only people 'afraid' to come forward in the Nazi period were people in Germany. Why is it that so many experts from around the world are so afraid of the evil Red White and Blue Empire?

And, I don't recall seeing your response to the fact that world wide, experts are changing their building codes because of the study of 911.

You are trying to force feed me crap. You are trying to rationalize the complete and thundering absence of qualified dissent concerning 911. You arrogantly suggest that I and those who think like me are somehow brainwashed because we DARE not think like you.

Fine. Let's see how far your fantasy goes...

Ya just can't win against a hypocrite like yourself.

You ask for examples, I give you great examples.

But no, they aren't good because no internet was available.

Apparently, phones didn't work, newspapers stopped printing "letters to the editor", national mail services failed, people simply were unable to communicate until the internet arrived.

Thanks for all that excuse mongering..err...I mean ..ahh.."enlightenment" twinstead!

MM

 

[e^n]

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.

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.

 

[Miragememories]

Your own posts contradict this assertion, since you constantly repeated the maximum cruising speed number as if it was the maximum speed possible by the aircraft. I suggest you reread your posts.

Your memory seems to be in error, so please let me refresh you. That was an analogy offered by another poster attempting to demonstrate the difference between recommended maximum speed and the maximum physical speed possible by a vehicle. I understood the analogy; I'm not quite sure why it seems you did not grasp it. It would seem you have confused it with something else.

I challenge you to find a single post of mine to you that has taken on a juvenile or disrepectful tone. You won't find one, because I have gone out of my way to be as civil as possible towards you so that you cannot use that sort of assertion.

That you are doing so, and doing so without citing any supporting evidence or examples (and, I note, still not addressing the outstanding issues), calls into question your motives and honesty in terms of forthrightly discussing the issues raised in this thread.

Well I think this post of yours is juvenile and disrespectful!

"..you constantly repeated the maximum cruising speed number as if it was the maximum speed possible by the aircraft.." The key words are "as if". I never said I thought maximum cruising speed equaled maximum possible speed. I definitely implied that there was good reason to believe that the two numbers would be close. Nothing I said established a lack of understanding on my part regarding what the words "cruising" and "maximum" meant.

Comparing a car's cruising speed to that of a commercial jet aircraft was absurd in my opinion and that's what my response indicated. The determination of a car's maximum cruising speed is quite different than that for a commercial jet! A car's cruising speed is by in large determined by legal speed limits (unless you are on the autobahn) and a commercial jet's is primarily determined by technology and fuel efficiency.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I fear you miss the point:the structural issues, and in particular the recognition in the Eurocode of the dangers posed by progressive collapse, are germaine to the discussion at hand. Therefore it is reasonable that we consider them. Digital codecs are not, as far as I am aware.

I didn't miss the point.

You dropped a reference to Eurocode on me without a link or explanation.

I couldn't respond without more info just like you would not be able to respond effectively when I introduced subject material that you were unfamiliar with.

MM

 

[Gravy]

Dedicated to the "truth"

Architect, who designs tall buildings, June 1

Following a comprehensive 5 year review, the structural requirements of the Scottish Building Standards have been revised to include specific and addition requirements in order to ensure that the extent of any collapse due to damaged structural elements will "not be disproportionate to the original cause".

But this isn't just some poxy national requirement, but is rather based on the new requirements of Structural Eurocode 1, Parts 1-7 (Accidental Actions). Yup, that's right; the Bush Neocons are controlling the various national and EU building standards agencies.

Wow!

As I worked my way through the requirements, in particular a redesign of structural members to act as vertical and horizontal ties in the event of columnular damage and the new regulation requiring a maximum collapse area of 15% of the fabric, supported by various papers and British Standards, it occurred to me that there is no extreme to which the NWO will not go.

And if it's happening in Scotland, it must be happening in Europe, the Antipodes, and the Americas.

Wow!!

I'm almost afraid to take a look at the International Fire Engineering Guidelines (that's IFEG for all you laymen) - I'll bet they've got all sort of mythical stories about failing steel and the like in there!!!

If they're really this powerful, maybe we should just join 'em?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2653804&postcount=1

Response from Miragememories:

Playing to the easy audience as I always suspected Architect.

And you wonder why your posts are held in question.

Hope the ego points are worth it.

MM http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2653908&postcount=2

Architect:

MM
That the OP is toungue-in-cheek is without doubt. But here's the rub: if it's so "obvious" that the structural models have been fiddled, then just how did learned organisations such as the SBSA, the BSI, and the Eurocodes group all fall for it? Either they're incompetent - which I think you'll find would be a rather difficult position to sustain - or they're part of the "plot"........

Really, I'd love to know! Alternatively I'd love to see some sort of technical response relating to these codes and the inclusion of progressive collapse criteria. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2655115&postcount=13

Architect, June 3

Incidentally, MM, any planned comeback on the amendments on the Eurocode to take account of progressive collapse risks?

Miragememories

Please elaborate.

I hate those kind of questions.

Tell me Architect what is your impression of the viability of the Avid DNxHD 220X codec?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656290&postcount=214

Miragememories

Those codecs referred to an area of my expertise that were not expected to be your area of expertise. Architect referred me to a topic that I was unfamiliar with and I just meant to give him a taste of his own medicine. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656723&postcount=244

Architect

I fear you miss the point:the structural issues, and in particular the recognition in the Eurocode of the dangers posed by progressive collapse, are germaine to the discussion at hand. Therefore it is reasonable that we consider them. Digital codecs are not, as far as I am aware. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2657862&postcount=279

Miragememories

I didn't miss the point.

You dropped a reference to Eurocode on me without a link or explanation.

I couldn't respond without more info just like you would not be able to respond effectively when I introduced subject material that you were unfamiliar with.

MM http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658277&postcount=296

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."

 

[twinstead]

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."

Especially when if true, the information would cast serious doubt on the conspiracist's theory.

In all honesty though I can at least see MM's point about a link.

 

[Architect]

A link? No need to be bashful, just ask the first time lads!

We subscribe to an online information system at the office and hence I've never thought to check whether it's available for free. Let me have a look and come back to you.

 

[twinstead]

A link? No need to be bashful, just ask the first time lads!

We subscribe to an online information system at the office and hence I've never thought to check whether it's available for free. Let me have a look and come back to you.

Dude. You DO realize that if it isn't on the internet it isn't true, right?