Video Fakery in the 9/11 Attack

[fullflavormenthol]

I get it. This website isn't about debunking but about some game for your own amusement. Well, game over.

Look forgive us if we are tired of dealing with Ace Baker, but if you would bother to simply use the search function you could actually find where we discussed and debunked the very paper you brought up in the OP. Ace himself didn't want to actually deal with facts, and I even looked at the stupid chopper 5 video and Ace refused to actually look into anything that I or the other people here were saying.

The fact of the matter is that all this no-plane video composite nonsense falls apart the moment you actually learn anything about the process of video compositing, which it seems no-planers no absolutely nothing about.

 

[T.A.M.]

Look forgive us if we are tired of dealing with Ace Baker, but if you would bother to simply use the search function you could actually find where we discussed and debunked the very paper you brought up in the OP. Ace himself didn't want to actually deal with facts, and I even looked at the stupid chopper 5 video and Ace refused to actually look into anything that I or the other people here were saying.

The fact of the matter is that all this no-plane video composite nonsense falls apart the moment you actually learn anything about the process of video compositing, which it seems no-planers no absolutely nothing about.

forget it man...this guy believes the COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WEAPONS were a hoax.

There is no reasoning with him, and NO NEED to make excuses for why he gets the treatment here that he does.

TAM

 

[cooperman]

forget it man...this guy believes the COLD WAR and NUCLEAR WEAPONS were a hoax.

There is no reasoning with him, and NO NEED to make excuses for why he gets the treatment here that he does.
TAM

I don't think anyone is asking you to make excuses for that, but you are meant to adhere to a membership agreement, whatever another posters views might be.

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't think anyone is asking you to make excuses for that, but you are meant to adhere to a membership agreement, whatever another posters views might be.

Are you suggesting I didn't?

You warned me once...I acknowledged your warning on that occasion.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

I don't think anyone is asking you to make excuses for that, but you are meant to adhere to a membership agreement, whatever another posters views might be.

 

[cooperman]

Are you suggesting I didn't?

You warned me once...I acknowledged your warning on that occasion.

TAM

No I wasn't warning you. There just seems to be a general feeling here among debunkers that they can abuse someone here just because they have extreme views.

To be honest, I think the views on the cold war and nuclear weapons are ridiculous but I don't feel the need to abuse him.

 

[T.A.M.]

I have not abused him...I put him on ignore, and then simply avoided threads he started.

The general consensus, despite some talk of otherwise above, here at JREF, is that it is tolerable to call a group of people (such as JREFers, or truthers, or nazis) names or even insult them (although it is considered poor form). That is different then personally attacking or insulting an individual JREF member, which IS a rule violation.

I think the guys were trying to make a point.

TAM

 

[Andy_Ross]

To be honest, I think the views on the cold war and nuclear weapons are ridiculous but I don't feel the need to abuse him.

What about his views on 'no planes'? are they ridiculous?

 

[jiggeryqua]

The general consensus, despite some talk of otherwise above, here at JREF, is that it is tolerable to call a group of people (such as JREFers, or truthers, or nazis) names or even insult them (although it is considered poor form). That is different then personally attacking or insulting an individual JREF member, which IS a rule violation.

TAM

A consistently unpunished rule violation, in the case of Jammonius, who is an individual JREF member continually subject to vitriolic and childish personal abuse.

I have no time for his theories, but I am generally impressed with his demeanour and somewhat dissapointed by those who choose to insult him rather than ignore him. If there are lurkers, and if they are at all undecided or lacking the knowledge or skills to establish whether Jammonius or his detractors are correct, I imagine they'd be more inclined to side with the polite, persistent (but deluded) Jammonius rather than his detractors.

 

[cooperman]

What about his views on 'no planes'? are they ridiculous?

I have no idea what his views on that are. TAM only mentioned cold war and nuclear weapons. I haven't followed the thread.

 

[beachnut]

A consistently unpunished rule violation, in the case of Jammonius, who is an individual JREF member continually subject to vitriolic and childish personal abuse.

I have no time for his theories, but I am generally impressed with his demeanour and somewhat dissapointed by those who choose to insult him rather than ignore him. If there are lurkers, and if they are at all undecided or lacking the knowledge or skills to establish whether Jammonius or his detractors are correct, I imagine they'd be more inclined to side with the polite, persistent (but deluded) Jammonius rather than his detractors.

The teacher talks nice so I believe her, 2 + 2 is 11. How many times have you been fooled by nice people? Snake-oil salesmen are nice.

Jammonious has delusions, they are easy to see, ignore is cool. His idea are nuts, he is so nice spreading lies and delusions. Very nice indeed. Is that how Hitler fooled everyone, he was nice and said what they wanted to hear? Jim Jones, drink the nice Kool-aid! Thermite Jones, thermite did it, and I am so personable every dolt believes me; I will spread the lie. Gage, he is so nice, who cares he only lies and takes money from idiots.

If someone lacks the skills to see he is spreading delusions, and they are fooled by his phony talk; it is self-critiquing. Another fringe truther to donate money to Gage and keep Gage off unemployment is good for everyone but those who believe his lies. Hope none of the gullible are as nuts a McVeigh, or the 19 terrorists.

 

[T.A.M.]

A consistently unpunished rule violation, in the case of Jammonius, who is an individual JREF member continually subject to vitriolic and childish personal abuse.

I have no time for his theories, but I am generally impressed with his demeanour and somewhat dissapointed by those who choose to insult him rather than ignore him. If there are lurkers, and if they are at all undecided or lacking the knowledge or skills to establish whether Jammonius or his detractors are correct, I imagine they'd be more inclined to side with the polite, persistent (but deluded) Jammonius rather than his detractors.

The mods do not have time to read all posts in all threads. If you find a comment about him inappropriate or in violation of the rules or agreements, there is a report option.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think anyone is asking you to make excuses for that, but you are meant to adhere to a membership agreement, whatever another posters views might be.

Members are also expected to assist the moderators in upholding the membership agreement by reporting posts to them that they feel may be in breach of that agreement. There is also an expectation that members respect the forum structure by - for example - not discussing matters of moderation in normal discussion threads. Therefore, if you feel that a post is violating the membership agreement, the proper way to deal with it is to report it to the moderators. The improper way to deal with it is to post a warning in the thread in response, which is itself a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the membership agreement.

That said, please adhere to the membership agreement yourself. One way to do that might be to report this post - which clearly violates the guidelines I've mentioned - rather than respond to it, thus compounding the impropriety.

The report button is the little triangle with the red exclamation mark in the bottom left hand corner of the information section to the left of each post. Press it, type a brief summary of your concern, and you will have abided by the membership agreement and set the good example you appear to feel we all so badly need.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have no idea what his views on that are. TAM only mentioned cold war and nuclear weapons. I haven't followed the thread.

His view is that no planes were involved in 9/11. They were all hoaxed. Passengers and aircraft alike never existed. Al records of the planes back to the manufacturer and component manufacturers are fake. All videos of the event are faked. Any vids taken on camcorders by witnesses were confiscated or tampered with. Eye witnesses who say there was a plane are only doing so because of 'peer pressure' from the people who saw the fake video on TV.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... All records of the planes back to the manufacturer and component manufacturers are fake...

To be scrupulously fair, although that is an entirely logical conclusion from his view, he studiously avoided directly saying so for the entire thread, despite being asked repeatedly.

 

[T.A.M.]

His view is that no planes were involved in 9/11. They were all hoaxed. Passengers and aircraft alike never existed. Al records of the planes back to the manufacturer and component manufacturers are fake. All videos of the event are faked. Any vids taken on camcorders by witnesses were confiscated or tampered with. Eye witnesses who say there was a plane are only doing so because of 'peer pressure' from the people who saw the fake video on TV.

Don't forget the part about staged actors on the ground, the light cues/markers in the towers, and the human markers on the streets, letting e baddies know when to carry out the tom foolery.

TAM

 

[Andy_Ross]

How could I forget.

 

[stewster89]

You know maybe no planners of his type help the Truth Movement because they actually make the CD science look sane by comparison. Not DRJudy though.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The teacher talks nice so I believe her, 2 + 2 is 11. How many times have you been fooled by nice people? Snake-oil salesmen are nice.

Jammonious has delusions, they are easy to see, ignore is cool. His idea are nuts, he is so nice spreading lies and delusions. Very nice indeed. Is that how Hitler fooled everyone, he was nice and said what they wanted to hear? Jim Jones, drink the nice Kool-aid! Thermite Jones, thermite did it, and I am so personable every dolt believes me; I will spread the lie. Gage, he is so nice, who cares he only lies and takes money from idiots.

If someone lacks the skills to see he is spreading delusions, and they are fooled by his phony talk; it is self-critiquing. Another fringe truther to donate money to Gage and keep Gage off unemployment is good for everyone but those who believe his lies. Hope none of the gullible are as nuts a McVeigh, or the 19 terrorists.

You appear to have missed the part where I said "I have no time for [Jammonius's] theories" (if 'theories' is an even remotely appropriate word for his delusory ideas). Another possible way to respond to what I actually said would be to agree that it would serve several debunkers well to maintain the same polite, respectful tone as Jammonius. Then, not only the snake-oil salesman speaks nicely and nobody would risk accepting snake-oil but be obliged to compare the actual claims rather than be swayed by the manner of their proponents. You couldn't, of course, be claiming that people should only believe the claims of the rudest and most abusive posters? Polite people aren't always trying to sell you snake oil or conspiracy theories or ethnic cleansing...

 

[MIKILLINI]

I may not have presented solid evidence for a cover-up, yet to say that the President of the United State of America was saying foolish things publicly because he for some reason had become a nutcase doesn't sound plausible to me. American presidents don't just blurt out random crazy thoughts. They have well thought through beforehand prepared statements.

A well prepared statement doesn't have a familiar phrase such as "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" written as; "... fool me once, shame on --shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." -