My First Ever Banning

[Gravy]

The Scottish Building Standards, which Architect was reading, are online for free, but only a genius or a wizard would think of entering "Scottish Building Standards" in an internet search engine and taking 30 seconds to browse to the relevant section.

 

[Gravy]

Wrong, as usual, mirage.

The fact is that you were wrong on every single point about the building and the surrounding buildings, and you have not provided any evidence of it being of similar design to the WTC towers except for saying that someone told you 1972 that it was a suspension design.

The fact is that you are so unaware of your surroundings that you don't even know how many floors there are in the building that you work in.

The fact is that you claimed to be in the 22nd floor stairwell of an 18 storey building.

The fact is that you claimed that the building next door was 22 storeys tall when it is merely 6 storeys tall.

The fact is that you claimed to be positive that a building built in 1987 was there in 1972.

The fact is that you INSISTED that I was wrong when I pointed out the facts and you called my credibility into question based upon the very points that you now claim were trivial.

I think that this is somewhat illuminating about how loose with the truth you are, how poor your powers of observation are, how quickly you accuse others of being wrong about factual matters without expending the slightest effort to ascertain those facts yourself, and, therefore, how valueless your opinions (disguised as facts) are.

LashL, how can you hold someone named Miragememories responsible for remembering stuff like the difference between a 22-story building and a 6-story building that he sees every workday? I call "Lawyer tactics" on you, and assign you one demerit.

 

[beachnut]

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

No the only liars are in the 9/11 truth movement. I can prove it. State one fact from the 9/11 truth movement to support their ideas and conclusions Simple stuff, but since you are just talking and not even able to state a fact. Your best attempt to show 175 was going slower failed. Go ahead try to find a fact. If you had some facts you would not be with a bunch of liars.

Example, Dr Jones said he has proof of thermite, he shows a cut column made during clean up. LIE.

LC video, one continuous presentation of misinformation, adds up to lies since simple minded dolts conclude 9/11 was an inside job. LIE

Zero facts and evidence and you are saying the people are the same on both sides. Sorry, you lost, you picked the side that tells lies about 9/11. I do not need a side to know how 9/11 happen. I have cheated, I actually have done all the things ordinary kids do to make a living, worked in gas stations, worked on farms, worked in amusement parks, ice-cream stores, construction, custom horse jumps, mailroom, shop gopher, engineer apprentice, BSEE, MSEE, USAF pilot, FAA ATP, Flight Commander, Operations Officer, Squadron Commander Desert Storm, Instructor Pilot, Accident Board President, Chief of Safety for industrial area of over 10,000 people. I have sweep floors, cleaned up vomit from kids, lost engines in-flight, been shot at with missiles blowing out my windows, dug ditches, commanded a squadron of people and planes in combat, designed lab to research advance cockpit design, coded in assembly language for integration of voice recognition for cockpit study, work on research projects in flight simulators for advance cockpit interfaces. As en engineer and pilot I have cheated and understand energy and know aircraft accidents and would say 28 years in the USAF qualifies me to figure out that the stand down crap about NORAD is a lie. (another LIE, NORAD stand down is a truther lie)

I have come a long way to know the entire 9/11 truth movement is just a big lie. You think you know something, but you failed to use your head to see the lies you want to believe are lies. I can not help you, you have to help yourself. And fighting me about stuff, only goes to prove you have zero facts. You believe in the world of made up junk know as "9/11 truth". Have a great illusion, you are living it. (yep in pilot training they warned us about illusions, you should take some classes, they help you see the truth)

The key to finding 9/11 truth is not to believe anyone. You must find the truth on your own, it takes character, grit, and knowledge to know the truth and stop being a biased political hack or lazy non-thinking drone.

I was a boy scout too, and I learned there not to trust idiots like Dr Jones and Fetzer. I can explain how I got that kind of experience from Boy Scouts if you would like. I played football too, and you are trying to block a 300 pound linebacker with your zero weight facts, you should at least find some facts to bulk up for the big game.

I find the entire truth movement to be the most disrespectful group of non-thinking beings in the world. Repulsive group of fact less people, some are selling lies, some are buying. That sums that up. But there is more...

 

[LashL]

LashL, how can you hold someone named Miragememories responsible for remembering stuff like the difference between a 22-story building and a 6-story building that he sees every workday? I call "Lawyer tactics" on you, and assign you one demerit.

Harumph. I call "Strawman" and "Lawyer tactics" and, um, er, "Strawman, Strawman, High Fives" on you, and assign you three demerits.

 

[Miragememories]

Again that's a matter of opinion. I think this all boils down to politics. You see, I hate the Bush administration. I think it is one of, if not THE worst administrations in US history.

Yet, I do not think they are responsible for 911.

You hate them just as much, and as an added bonus you think they orchestrated 911.

I already hate them. If I was presented compelling evidence that they were responsible I would be right out there in the streets protesting; I would hate them nevertheless.

Again, it's a very basic issue of ones definition of compelling evidence. IMO, there is NONE that changes in any way in any major form the official explanation.

You think that anybody who believes the official explanation is a shill.

Therefore, you think I am a shill. So be it. I submit that you are shill to your movement.

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

 

[Miragememories]

The Scottish Building Standards, which Architect was reading, are online for free, but only a genius or a wizard would think of entering "Scottish Building Standards" in an internet search engine and taking 30 seconds to browse to the relevant section.

Yawn.

If he has a point to make he should make it.

Maybe you'll act like a lap dog and chase down every reference but I expect sources to be clearly referenced.

MM

 

[twinstead]

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

Well, this kind of goes both ways, nicht wahr?

 

[twinstead]

Yawn.

Maybe you'll act like a lap dog and chase down every reference but I expect sources to be clearly referenced.

Dude. This throws a major monkey wrench in your theory. Perhaps you might want to, oh I don't know, check it out?

 

[Miragememories]

LashL, how can you hold someone named Miragememories responsible for remembering stuff like the difference between a 22-story building and a 6-story building that he sees every workday? I call "Lawyer tactics" on you, and assign you one demerit.

She is wrong on a number of points but I see no point in addressing this further until I have more than piecemeal information.

You are desperate for something to retaliate with aren't you Gravy..too funny.

MM

 

[Gravy]

Yawn.

If he has a point to make he should make it.

Maybe you'll act like a lap dog and chase down every reference but I expect sources to be clearly referenced.

MM

Translation: "Although it takes less than two minutes to find this information, I refuse to look for it because I lack the intellectual curiosity of a lichen, and the Code of True Truthiness requires me to spit on research and researchers."

 

[Gravy]

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

People who resort to cheap name calling have to face being themselves judged and not just the people they target.

...and the "truth" goes marching on.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited to remove unattributed / unlinked quotes.

 

[Gravy]

I guess it all depends on what the word "good" implies.
...

I believe I spoke the truth and there are few circumstances where one should apologize for expressing the truth.

MM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2462478&postcount=151

 

[Corsair 115]

"..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.

First, if you consider that juvenile, then it would seem you are astonishingly thin-skinned. Second, that was my assessment of the impression your own posts were giving, thus letting you know your message was not being interpreted as you apparently intended it to be interpreted. Third, you did not cite any figures for what the maximum speed was at 1,000 feet, cruising or otherwise. Fourth, your own posts are framed in such a way as to make it quite clear you believe the aircraft was not capable of going that fast at that low an altitude, and then backed that up by citing the 568 MPH at 35,000 figure.

 

[R.Mackey]

Then and now

The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of 568 mph (at 35,000 ft.).

[...]

NIST says this was within reality, even though their computer model now is being made to simulate a 767 at 1,000 ft in heavy air, tweaked to fly 12 mph faster than the 767-200's maximum speed at 35,000 feet where air is extremely thin and offers little air speed resistance.

Care to comment?

I never even dinged you for saying 570 MPH was 12 MPH more than 568 MPH, rather than two...

And now you say this:

"..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.

You are such a bad liar.

Having said that, I would rejoice to discover that my beliefs about 9/11 Truth were unfounded and that I had been backing the wrong horse.

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.

Assuming this isn't another lie, I have good news for you. Your beliefs are about as unfounded as they can get.

Now do yourself a favor, and correct your beliefs, as I outlined in this post. All of your statements insisting Flight 175 must have been going slower are wrong, and all of your statements claiming perfidy on the part of NIST are lies. It's that simple.

 

[Miragememories]

Translation: "Although it takes less than two minutes to find this information, I refuse to look for it because I lack the intellectual curiosity of a lichen, and the Code of True Truthiness requires me to spit on research and researchers."

Wow ya got all your colours flying today Marky!

I pity the poor lichen that you have done your intellectual stretch to "dis".

You are so bad.

Speaking of research, other that mastering Google and "apple-C" what have you accomplished since 9/11 Marky?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

...and the "truth" goes marching on.

If you are going to quote me..quote me!

You have few scruples.

But you are the best of the best in that dept.

MM

 

[Architect]

Hokey dokey, MM asked for a link - I assume just to Eurocode 1 covering accidental damage to structural work, since the Scottish Building Standards are rather easy to find online.

The section in question covers what is loosely described as accidental damage, but would include all damage such as fire and explosion to a structure, and recognises the additional measures required in order to limit the affects of progressive collapse.

http://eurocodes.jrc.it/showpage.php?id=131


Unfortunately it appears that those of you without the benefit of access to an online information system such as Barbour have to part with some hard cash:

http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standa...a/British-Standards-and-Eurocodes/Eurocode-1/

http://www.eurocodes.co.uk/PartDetail.aspx?EurocodePartID=8

However the explanatory handbooks are available here:

http://www.ctn-eurocodes.cz/leonardo/?id=13

 

[twinstead]

Okay. MM, If indeed these codes are a direct result of 911 you have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

You are blowing this stuff off, aren't you?

 

[stateofgrace]

Wow ya got all your colours flying today Marky!

I pity the poor lichen that you have done your intellectual stretch to "dis".

You are so bad.

Speaking of research, other that mastering Google and "apple-C" what have you accomplished since 9/11 Marky?

MM

And you have accomplished what exactly?

Selling DVDs full of lies and mistruths, maybe investing all you spare time into accusing innocent people of mass murder. Oh wait maybe joining forums to find out the truth, ask questions, ignore the answer then return later to keep trying to sell the same discredited claims?

What have you achieved MM? Have you stopped the war out in Iraq? Have you put forward any alternative foreign polices? Have you even got any?

Maybe the truth movement has galvanised mass matches through the streets, lobbied the United Nations, called for new and better resolution to address world polices, em no, maybe not. You have no answers, you have no polices all you can do is condemn those who refuse to listen to you.

Are you going to actually address my post MM, remember you said it was all one big lie, to which I posted this.

Yes MM, my massive investment in the big lie. I will tell you what MM, why don't you tell me who is lying, come son beam you have now made a claim, back it up. Name names, tell me the truth, who are you accusing of lying? NIST? The FBI? The CIA ?NORAD? NEADS ? Who MM, come on you freedom fighting truth warrior tell me.

WHO ARE YOU ACCUSING OF LYING AND BEING INVOLVED IN MASS MURDER?

Maybe this lot?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...24&postcount=3

please save your further self righteous condemnation of anybody that does not believe your theories until you address this and name exactly who you are accusing of lying. Will you do that MM? I doubt it, it is better to take the moral high ground and claim everybody is lying apart from you of course.

The lies come from you and your movement either put up right now and tell me exactly who is lying or for ever hold your tongue.

Show me how much you have achieved show me your vast understanding of world events, come on MM you have been at this for years, it's all one big lie. Are you going to actually tell me who is lying? Sometime today will do.

 

[Architect]

Okay. MM, If indeed these codes are a direct result of 911 you have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

That would be something of an oversimplification, and apologies if I wasn't quite clear for all you non-construction people.

Europe is moving towards harmonisation of building standards and the like as part of the EU processes, and an important aspect of this has been the development of Eurocodes and EN standards. These have involved national drafting bodies and professional bodies from across the EU.

Some of these documents, including parts of the structural requirements, stretch back over 10 years.

However what we've seen are refinements and changes in emphasis based upon issues such as climate change or improving environmental standards. One issue (amonst many) is that the codes also place greater emphasis on accidental damage and the risk of dispropportionate (including progressive) collapse. This has, in turn, filtered into the various EU national building standards.

So what we have is a scenario where this huge group of learned groups and standards agencies have all been looking in depth at the issues behind progressive collapse and the need for additional compulsory measures to be put in place.

Now if progressive collapse is the kind of myth that the Truth movement would have us believe, it does rather beg the question as to whether all these people are in on the plot or have been duped.