My First Ever Banning [Archive] - Page 2

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:07 PM

Invincible? Hardly. Present strong enough evidence to change my mind.

Which was exactly what you thought you were doing earlier in this thread. But when your strong evidence turned out not to be as strong as you thought it was once the flaws were pointed out to you, you have now abandoned your points rather than A) defending them with other supplementary evidence, or B) admitting you were in error.

My rebuttal to you was a very simple one. You incorrectly assumed "maximum cruising speed" meant maximum speed possible by the aircraft. I pointed out to you what is actually meant by "cruising speed" and, rather than acknowledging your incorrect assumption or attempting to refute my point, you've simply ignored it.

And seem to be rather defensive about it in the process.

This may shock you Corsair but I'm quite adept at using a dictionary.

I'm well aware that "cruising" is not the same as "maximum" and your assumption that I thought differently was mistaken.

I'm also well aware that the cruising speed of a car is totally irrelevant when discussing the maximum cruising speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet of altitude.

Are you?

I've largely ignored what you've had to say because in comparison with what R. Mackey was posting, your comments were juvenile and thoughtless.

You are probably better off just observing until you have something worth saying..in my opinion that is. Feel free to post all you want. I'm just explaining why I don't feel obliged to reply.

MM

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 05:07 PM

For the record, I do not have, nor have ever claimed to have, a Ph. D. I have four degrees in total, but none of them is the Piled Higher and Deeper.

Carry on.

Mood-killer.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 05:09 PM

I suspect the rank 'n file here

Rank-and-file ? I wasn't aware we had a hierarchy.

Huh. Waddayano.

are so in love with the OCT because they hate to see America "dis'd".

Well either I'm not rank-and-file or you're just spewing nonsense again. I'm Canadian. What do I care if the USA gets dissed ? I have no problem thinking that Bush and co. could do something wrong or even criminal. But the evidence must support it.

I mean I know you grew up with the idea that that America was "lilly white" and could never be involved in something so black as 9/11.

Laurel and Hardy should've made "March of the Strawmen Soldiers" instead.

Minadin

2nd June 2007, 05:10 PM

BS

Thinking differently is what the JREF Conspiracy forum objects to.

In LC we only ask that you be prepared to have an honest discussion.

MM

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).

LashL

2nd June 2007, 05:10 PM

I believe C., they are both 22 story towers.

Are you trying to awe me with your research of that which has been laid bare for you to see?

MM

No, MM, I am curious to know which one is the south one, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one, and curious to know how the design is "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2". That is why I asked.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:17 PM

I call BS. You say you have respect for the NIST engineers, yet in your scenario they are too cowardly to come forward and reveal that their work is being used improperly.

You are doing the same thing Pdoherty is doing; you are kissing up to a group of people whom you hold in contempt to appear moral.

It disgusts me.

They aren't cowards. Go study your history. Many people have remained silent when they knew lies were being presented as fact.

NIST engineers have families, friends, careers, all to be lost if they start whistle blowing.

How much guts do you display with your cheap remarks twinstead?

I'm not kissing up to anyone.

I'm simply speaking my mind and unlike yourself, I don't worry about upsetting the rest of the JREF family.

MM

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 05:18 PM

No I don't accept that after numerous pages of in depth calculations, a reputable MIT professor's meticulously calculated speed for UA-175 of 503 mph can be casually dismissed as equivalent to the NIST figure of 570 mph.

What part of "the angle is the most important factor" don't you get ?

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

Do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans who gave their lives on that day, trying to save people from those burning towers, by saying that their government was, contra all the evidence, involved in planning this tragedy, and hinting that they, themselves, were in on it ?

Some of you are brilliant and some of you are a**holes.

Why, thank you. I assume I'm part of the latter group.

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!

Rhetoric. I can claim things like this, too. In fact, I can repeat them so many times that you're likely to eventually believe me, seeing as how you seem to think that repetition makes right.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

That's fine. What's not fine is that they let their bias and paranoia guide their opinions, when far more knowledgeable and experienced people continuously show them wrong. And no, I don't mean me.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations.

That's fine. But when the NASA guy explains to me some explosion mechanics, I won't go around calling him an idiot just because my brain can't wrap itself around the numbers he's crunching.

I've met many Hollywood celebrities and I have met many heads of government.

Can you arrange meetings and dinners ? I'm partial to Jessica Alba.

They are all 'real' people just like you and me.

Even more so, given their fortunes.

The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Again, speculation. It's fine that you bring this idea to the table, but would you mind substantiating it with evidence ? Instead of the "lilly white" USA you say we paint, you seem to be using broad black strokes.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

That, we can agree on.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 05:19 PM

They aren't cowards. Go study your history. Many people have remained silent when they knew lies were being presented as fact.

Again, that's fine.

But when said people are safe and far away from harm, why AREN'T they coming forward ?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:20 PM

No, MM, I am curious to know which one is the south one, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one, and curious to know how the design is "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2". That is why I asked.

Where are you getting the 30 story figure from?

Both towers are suspension buildings as were the WTC towers.

I wouldn't have known this only I photographed them for an architect around 1972 and he was making such a point about their unique engineering.

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 05:21 PM

No I don't accept that after numerous pages of in depth calculations, a reputable MIT professor's meticulously calculated speed for UA-175 of 503 mph can be casually dismissed as equivalent to the NIST figure of 570 mph.

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

You have to be blind if you don't realize that you are a member of a group with a similar representation.

Some of you are brilliant and some of you are a**holes.

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!

Yes there are many who conveniently deserve the mocking labels people like yourself wish to saddle all of us with.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

I'm not calling you a redneck..you certainly qualify as a "loose cannon "though.

My brother-in-law knows that I respect him as a person and that I am well aware that he is an intelligent man. We can't all be rocket scientists. I grew up in a small town of 4,000 people and I am not a snob about occupations. I've done farm labour, cleaned furnaces, worked in road construction, house painting, plumber's helper, in short, I've had a good look at both sides of the occupational fence. Some jobs are dirty, but they have to be done, and it doesn't mean that the person doing them should be equated with the job.

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.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations. I 've now worked in broadcast TV for 35 years. I've met many Hollywood celebrities and I have met many heads of government. They are all 'real' people just like you and me. I used to be in awe of their celebrity status but over time I've seen to many of their human failings, heard too many farts, seen too much intoxication and listened to too much 'earthy' humour to remain under their celebrity spell.

I respect the NIST engineers and their qualifications. I'm sure they know far more about their areas of expertise than I ever will. I'm equally sure that just like many creators, authors, directors etc., they have limited control over how their work is used. And this is where you and I separate company. The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

Just be your own man beachnut. That's all I'm trying to do.

MM
You can not even get close to covering you own tracks. You posted a reference to 500 mph from ATC, and a remark, twice the limit. Unknown to you, cause it is past your level of expertise, twice the limit is 500 KIAS, which is equal to 570 mph. Simple math seems to escape you as does logic, knowledge and comprehension. Sorry you do not want to discuss why KIAS and mph. You posted it, you missed it, and you still have missed it.

Your understanding of CODECs at best is a a lay person level. I doubt you can develop a program to develop your own CODEC. If you were able to understand and develop CODECs you would not be a truther. Sorry, but if you are a truther, higher level math and physics are beyond your grasp. As demonstrated when you can not even keep up with your own post on simple mph vs KIAS conversions and use by ATC, vs a news error in defining units.

If you do not understand the MPH vs KIAS discussion you posted, I do not understand your problem. You posted it, why are you so stubborn to learn what you posted. Your post debunked you. It appears you are the one who has a shallow knowledge on the airspeed. Proof is the fact you posted the very evidence to prove you reference airspeed of 503 to be improperly supported. Once again, you posted the proof and now you are too lazy to acknowledge the truth, or just too challenged to figure it out.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:21 PM

Again, that's fine.

But when said people are safe and far away from harm, why AREN'T they coming forward ?

Far away from harm?

Physical distance is largely irrelevant when discussing "whistle blowing".

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:29 PM

You can not even get close to covering you own tracks. You posted a reference to 500 mph from ATC, and a remark, twice the limit. Unknown to you, cause it is past your level of expertise, twice the limit is 500 KIAS, which is equal to 570 mph. Simple math seems to escape you as does logic, knowledge and comprehension. Sorry you do not want to discuss why KIAS and mph. You posted it, you missed it, and you still have missed it.

Your understanding of CODECs at best is a a lay person level. I doubt you can develop a program to develop your own CODEC. If you were able to understand and develop CODECs you would not be a truther. Sorry, but if you are a truther, higher level math and physics are beyond your grasp. As demonstrated when you can not even keep up with your own post on simple mph vs KIAS conversions and use by ATC, vs a news error in defining units.

If you do not understand the MPH vs KIAS discussion you posted, I do not understand your problem. You posted it, why are you so stubborn to learn what you posted. Your post debunked you. It appears you are the one who has a shallow knowledge on the airspeed. Proof is the fact you posted the very evidence to prove you reference airspeed of 503 to be improperly supported. Once again, you posted the proof and now you are too lazy to acknowledge the truth, or just too challenged to figure it out.

Sigh.

I quoted. Go back and read in context.

I haven't claimed any understanding which I do not possess.

I firmly stated 503 mph carefully calculated is significantly less that a speculative 570 mph dropped into a simulation.

I don't claim the abilty to code codecs but I do use them extensively. You want to challenge me in the use of Avid codecs with Unity SAN operations just bring it on!

MM

LashL

2nd June 2007, 05:30 PM

Where are you getting the 30 story figure from?

Both towers are suspension buildings as were the WTC towers.

I wouldn't have known this only I photographed them for an architect around 1972 and he was making such a point about their unique engineering.

MM

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong buildings. I don't know of two 22 storey towers in close proximity in Toronto. I was thinking that you were talking about the Yonge Eglinton Centre buildings. The one at 2300 Yonge (building 1) is 30 storeys tall; the one at 20 Eglinton West (building 2) is 22 storeys tall.

As an aside, the photos you mentioned would be interesting to see.

twinstead

2nd June 2007, 05:36 PM

They aren't cowards. Go study your history. Many people have remained silent when they knew lies were being presented as fact.

NIST engineers have families, friends, careers, all to be lost if they start whistle blowing.

How much guts do you display with your cheap remarks twinstead?

I'm not kissing up to anyone.

I'm simply speaking my mind and unlike yourself, I don't worry about upsetting the rest of the JREF family.

MM

Like I said. BS. History is full of people who risk their careers and families for what they think is right. It is you who don't know history if you suggest otherwise.

WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:39 PM

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong buildings. I don't know of two 22 storey towers in close proximity in Toronto. I was thinking that you were talking about the Yonge Eglinton Centre buildings. The one at 2300 Yonge (building 1) is 30 storeys tall; the one at 20 Eglinton West (building 2) is 22 storeys tall.

As an aside, the photos you mentioned would be interesting to see.

The buildings in question are 2190 and 2180 Yonge joined by a 3rd floor walkway.

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 05:39 PM

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

MM
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.

twinstead

2nd June 2007, 05:41 PM

Oh, and MM, try not to keep implying that anybody who is adamant that they accept the official explanation of 911 aren't 'speaking their mind'.

There is a world of experts who disagree with you. According to you they are all simply worried about their jobs.

Of course you must be 100% right.

Newtons Bit

2nd June 2007, 05:41 PM

If an engineer comes forward with something that is unethical, he will not lose his career. His boss may fire him, but he'd have no problem getting a job elsewhere.

LashL

2nd June 2007, 05:47 PM

The buildings in question are 2190 and 2180 Yonge joined by a 3rd floor walkway.

MM

????

2180 Yonge is the Canadian Tire building, built in 1972, 18 storeys tall. 2190 Yonge is a 6 storey building built in 1987.

Those are two of the three Canada Square buildings; the third is 2200 Yonge, which is 17 storeys tall, and which was built in 1962-3.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:54 PM

Like I said. BS. History is full of people who risk their careers and families for what they think is right. It is you who don't know history if you suggest otherwise.

WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE?

Hmm..

Hitler's Germany!

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (prelude to the Vietnam War)

Watergate

Wall Street Scandals

Weapons of Mass Distruction in Iraq

Just a few. Lots of people knew. No one spoke up until forced to!

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Yes there have been brave heroic people throughout history and they usually have made a supreme sacrifice for being so.

Hence the expression; "I'd rather be a live coward than a dead hero!"

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 06:00 PM

????

2180 Yonge is the Canadian Tire building, built in 1972, 18 storeys tall. 2190 Yonge is a 6 storey building built in 1987.

Those are two of the three Canada Square buildings; the third is 2200 Yonge, which is 17 storeys tall, and which was built in 1962-3.

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

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 06:08 PM

Far away from harm?

Physical distance is largely irrelevant when discussing "whistle blowing".

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.

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 06:11 PM

Sigh.

I quoted. Go back and read in context.

I haven't claimed any understanding which I do not possess.

I firmly stated 503 mph carefully calculated is significantly less that a speculative 570 mph dropped into a simulation.

I don't claim the abilty to code codecs but I do use them extensively. You want to challenge me in the use of Avid codecs with Unity SAN operations just bring it on!

MM
You posted a reference to 500 mph from a source. The source was talking about ATC said twice the legal limit. The legal limit is 250 KIAS, not mph. Twice the limit is 500 KIAS, that is 570 mph. The paper you used the 503 falsely assumed the ATC was 500 mph as the news source quoted. The news source was wrong since ATC used KIAS. As you know a nautical mile is 6076 feet. A knot, in KIAS, knot indicated airspeed is based on a nautical mile.

I was trying to help you understand why the speed is closer to 590 mph than it is to 503, and why. Plus I did a video check months ago, came up with about 590 mph from video frames. Looking at your post quote of 503 was easy to see the error in the paper you took it out of, and why they favored the lower value since they thought they were backed up by ATC information. I have seen others calculate the speed from video and they were all close to 570 - 590.

If you take the damage done to the WTC, those damage models based on energy confirm the higher speed. You have been reading too much into running the models NIST ran at different speeds. The NIST guys had no agenda to prove anything right or wrong, you can see their goals, and the truth movement is reading too much into the models.

You were quibbling over the speeds, I guess you do not want any input on the speeds and why they may be low. I was trying to give you expert analysis of why the paper you quoted with 503 mph could be in error. If you do not want someone who understands ATC jargon, speed limits below 10,000, and other flying topics, then do not post stuff that is not even in range with supporting evidence.

LashL

2nd June 2007, 06:12 PM

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

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?

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

Oh, the irony.

Gravy

2nd June 2007, 06:22 PM

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?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? :con2:

You have to be blind if you don't realize that you are a member of a group with a similar representation.Maybe when MM gets some time he'll show us what we got wrong, and admit his continual string of errors.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.No, they're just nasty, incompetent ignoramuses.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations.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.... (http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=013f5314-e8ad-4c74-9310-6fbd11396d1f)

twinstead

2nd June 2007, 07:20 PM

Corsair 115

2nd June 2007, 09:53 PM

I'm well aware that "cruising" is not the same as "maximum" and your assumption that I thought differently was mistaken. 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.

I'm also well aware that the cruising speed of a car is totally irrelevant when discussing the maximum cruising speed of a Boeing 767-200 at 35,000 feet of altitude. 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've largely ignored what you've had to say because in comparison with what R. Mackey was posting, your comments were juvenile and thoughtless. 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.

Architect

3rd June 2007, 05:43 AM

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.

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.

stateofgrace

3rd June 2007, 06:21 AM

Hmm..

Hitler's Germany!

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (prelude to the Vietnam War)

Watergate

Wall Street Scandals

Weapons of Mass Distruction in Iraq

Just a few. Lots of people knew. No one spoke up until forced to!

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies.

Yes there have been brave heroic people throughout history and they usually have made a supreme sacrifice for being so.

Hence the expression; "I'd rather be a live coward than a dead hero!"

MM

Yes MM there have been many scandals and secrets have been exposed. They are now a matter of record. See secrets do not remain secret for long, when these secrets are actually factual based. There is always a general desire to exposes wrong doing and there is never a need or want to suppress it.

This is where you fail, you appear to truly believe that anybody who does not agree with you simply does so because they are afraid to think outside the box or afraid to face the truth. In this you are incorrect, I can only speak for myself, I am neither afraid of the truth nor have I any desire to see it suppressed. Equally so if there was anything at all that was promoted as the truth that warranted further investigation it is almost certain these secrets would be exposed. People would talk, there would be whistle blows because as you have said yourself, throughout history many people have made sacrifices and have risked everything to exposes wrong doing. Yet, nobody has stepped forward about 911, a conspiracy of mass murder that took place over five years ago. Why are people being quiet MM, where is this bravery you like to promote? The same bravery you pretend to have and of course anybody who disagrees with does not process.

Why MM, after five years does this massive conspiracy that involves thousands of people, including those who investigated it, still remain secret?

You know why, because it does not exist, other than in your mind. It is your chance to take the moral high ground and pretend that you and your fellow truthers are actually being brave, speaking out. You want to be recognised and be given the accolade that genuinely brave people get. This will never happen because you will never expose what is not there. To compensate for this you get all upset and call people blind, incapable of being able to think for themselves, a frightened group that seeks to reinforce their own beliefs with group mentality.

It must be so frustrating for you, unable and unwilling to accept that your vast conspiracy is simply in your mind and is not based in reality. For reality is that was there anything behind these theories, they would have been exposed years ago and by far braver people than you and your movement will ever be.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 07:37 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 07:44 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:02 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:13 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:16 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:18 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:23 AM

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? :con2:

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.... (http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=013f5314-e8ad-4c74-9310-6fbd11396d1f)

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

3rd June 2007, 08:30 AM

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Square_Complex#2190_Yonge_Street):

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

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 08:31 AM

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 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8500&view=findpost&p=13413197), May, 2007

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 08:34 AM

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

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 08:37 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:37 AM

"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

3rd June 2007, 08:42 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 08:46 AM

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 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7589&view=findpost&p=13318559).

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 09:09 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 09:44 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 11:06 AM

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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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://forums.randi.org/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

3rd June 2007, 11:36 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 11:47 AM

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

3rd June 2007, 11:56 AM

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:00 PM

Yes MM there have been many scandals and secrets have been exposed. They are now a matter of record. See secrets do not remain secret for long, when these secrets are actually factual based. There is always a general desire to exposes wrong doing and there is never a need or want to suppress it.

I'd say that qualifies as a myth or wishful thinking.

How could you possibly know what, and how many, fact based secrets have not been exposed?

This is where you fail, you appear to truly believe that anybody who does not agree with you simply does so because they are afraid to think outside the box or afraid to face the truth.

"I appear" to be subjected to your "spin".

Disagreement based on solid facts, logic, ethics, greater experience, greater expertise, anecdotal knowledge etc., are all potential avenues that are valid and not instantly interpreted by myself as a fear of the truth.

In this you are incorrect, I can only speak for myself,

Oh if you only would. Alas you insist on speaking for me while relying on your biases for a guide.

I am neither afraid of the truth nor have I any desire to see it suppressed. Equally so if there was anything at all that was promoted as the truth that warranted further investigation it is almost certain these secrets would be exposed. People would talk, there would be whistle blows because as you have said yourself, throughout history many people have made sacrifices and have risked everything to exposes wrong doing. Yet, nobody has stepped forward about 911, a conspiracy of mass murder that took place over five years ago. Why are people being quiet MM, where is this bravery you like to promote? The same bravery you pretend to have and of course anybody who disagrees with does not process.

Throughout history is a long time. Heroes have always been few and whistle blowers have most often been ostracized as disloyal, untrustworthy "rats".

There are many reasons why potential 9/11 whistle blowers haven't come forward. Given the gravity of 9/11 and all that has followed in it's wake, it's small wonder that few with inside knowledge would be willing to expose themselves to an uncertain reception. Today's press corps, the people a whistle blower would normally take their story to, show little interest in acting against corporate policy which solidly supports the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Why MM, after five years does this massive conspiracy that involves thousands of people, including those who investigated it, still remain secret?

That sounds like NIST's missing WTC7 report. We don't know how many people have direct, whistle-blower type knowledge. I certainly doubt it's in the thousands. Combine that with the fact that they've remained silent for so long and would be considered accessories to a such a horrific crime, it's no surprise than no one is volunteering to admit they participated in such an abomination.

You know why, because it does not exist, other than in your mind. It is your chance to take the moral high ground and pretend that you and your fellow truthers are actually being brave, speaking out. You want to be recognised and be given the accolade that genuinely brave people get. This will never happen because you will never expose what is not there. To compensate for this you get all upset and call people blind, incapable of being able to think for themselves, a frightened group that seeks to reinforce their own beliefs with group mentality.

It must be so frustrating for you, unable and unwilling to accept that your vast conspiracy is simply in your mind and is not based in reality. For reality is that was there anything behind these theories, they would have been exposed years ago and by far braver people than you and your movement will ever be.

If it was a personal glory trip as you believe, don't you think I'd use my real name?

You are right about one thing. If it's not there, it certainly can't be exposed.

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

MM

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 12:03 PM

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

A good question, and one you might want to think about answering for yourself if it ISN'T there.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:18 PM

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.

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

9/11 itself was of course horrific and not good.

BUT..

Most people would accept becoming more popular as "good".
You have become very popular here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum largely through your 9/11 related activity.

Most people feel "good" when their ego or self esteem gets a boost.
You seem appreciative of all the praise your 9/11-related online publishing efforts have received. I assume that was a "good" feeling.

I watched your Ground Zeros 9/11 video all the way through.
You really sounded like you were having a "good" time.

Many of your 9/11 posts and replys go beyond the informative. They are frequently mocking, arrogant and insulting.
Assuming it is not painful for you to behave in such a manner, I can only assume that these immature assaults on individuals who disagree with you, are designed to make them feel bad and you feel smug and "good".

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

MM

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 12:22 PM

Many of your 9/11 posts and replys go beyond the informative. They are frequently mocking, arrogant and insulting.
Assuming it is not painful for you to behave in such a manner, I can only assume that these immature assaults on individuals who disagree with you, are designed to make them feel bad and you feel smug and "good".

This, IMHO, gets the coveted Pot Calling the Kettle Black award.

uk_dave

3rd June 2007, 12:22 PM

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

9/11 itself was of course horrific and not good.

BUT..

......

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

MM

Dizzy much?:rolleyes:

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:29 PM

A good question, and one you might want to think about answering for yourself if it ISN'T there.

Well I've answered that question before and I'll answer it again.

Just like yourself I'm sure, the evidence has to be convincing.

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.

MM

LashL

3rd June 2007, 12:34 PM

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

No, the purpose was to show that you are very loose with the truth, that you offer up "facts" that are not factual at all, that when confronted with evidence of your inaccuracy, you continue to insist that you are right even when it is obvious that you are wrong, and that throughout the process, you unjustifiably call into question the credibility of the person challenging your factual inaccuracy - without ever bothering to ascertain the truth for yourself but maintaining that you are right nonetheless.

Thus, it was a worthwhile exercise, and it took very little time to prove you wrong, as usual.

Because, of course:
Stating facts that aren't facts makes me wonder about other statements you've made with such certainty?

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:37 PM

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 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7589&view=findpost&p=13318559).

But you haven't been banned!

And while I have attacked your posts and motives, I haven't resorting to name calling.

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

MM

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 12:40 PM

Well I've answered that question before and I'll answer it again.

Just like yourself I'm sure, the evidence has to be convincing.

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.

MM

Well here's the rub: What if two otherwise reasonable people disagree on what is convincing evidence?

You have gone on record as suggesting that even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, many here at JREF would continue to support what you consider the 'big lie'. Far enough.

I submit that when faced by what I consider compelling evidence that your theory is wrong you would ALSO continue to support your movement, which I consider the 'big lie'.

What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion concerning what is compelling evidence.

stateofgrace

3rd June 2007, 12:41 PM

:words:

If it is there, will you embrace the truth or attempt to suppress it because of your investment in the BIG LIE?

MM

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...24&postcount=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&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.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:45 PM

No, the purpose was to show that you are very loose with the truth, that you offer up "facts" that are not factual at all, that when confronted with evidence of your inaccuracy, you continue to insist that you are right even when it is obvious that you are wrong, and that throughout the process, you unjustifiably call into question the credibility of the person challenging your factual inaccuracy - without ever bothering to ascertain the truth for yourself but maintaining that you are right nonetheless.

Thus, it was a worthwhile exercise, and it took very little time to prove you wrong, as usual.

Because, of course:

Too funny.

So in other words you were just game playing.

The fact that I was in error about the heigth of the building was more important to you than the fact that it was of similar construction and completion date as the WTC tower.

Had I have known 9/11 was not of interest and that petty details were, I would have withheld my reply until I got to work tomorrow and could confirm those unimportant details.

I dare say it would have ruined your weekend if I had gotten all your trivial questions right.

Victory at any cost eh C...no matter how shallow.

MM

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 12:48 PM

So MM tell me again how it is WE who are so arrogant?

beachnut

3rd June 2007, 12:50 PM

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.

MMIs this what truthers do when the never had any facts and unable to find any? Sad. Doing the thing you say others are doing. Good job. Bring facts next time, but then there are zero facts in the lie machine 9/11 truth.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:51 PM

Architect, who designs tall buildings, June 1

Response from Miragememories:

Architect:

Architect, June 3

Miragememories

Miragememories

Architect

Miragememories

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."

It's all "good" Gravy.

We know you are an accomplished 'cut 'n paste' artist.

MM

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 12:54 PM

Well here's the rub: What if two otherwise reasonable people disagree on what is convincing evidence?

You have gone on record as suggesting that even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, many here at JREF would continue to support what you consider the 'big lie'. Far enough.

I submit that when faced by what I consider compelling evidence that your theory is wrong you would ALSO continue to support your movement, which I consider the 'big lie'.

What we have here is a fundamental difference of opinion concerning what is compelling evidence.

Maybe we do and maybe we don't.

Certainly the compelling evidence has yet to appear for either of us.

MM

LashL

3rd June 2007, 12:58 PM

Dupe -connection glitch

LashL

3rd June 2007, 01:02 PM

Dupe - connection glitch.

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 01:04 PM

Maybe we do and maybe we don't.

Certainly the compelling evidence has yet to appear for either of us.

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.

uk_dave

3rd June 2007, 01:05 PM

What the hell is a 'suspension' design anyways?

Suspension normally implies that the load is carried from above rather than below, hence a 'suspension bridge' supports the deck by hanging it from cables.

The towers, as far as I am aware, had no suspension features since the floor trusses carrying the live and dead loads within the building were supported at their ends by the interior and exterior columns.

Where does 'suspension' come into this?

LashL

3rd June 2007, 01:06 PM

Too funny.

So in other words you were just game playing.

The fact that I was in error about the heigth of the building was more important to you than the fact that it was of similar construction and completion date as the WTC tower.

Had I have known 9/11 was not of interest and that petty details were, I would have withheld my reply until I got to work tomorrow and could confirm those unimportant details.

I dare say it would have ruined your weekend if I had gotten all your trivial questions right.

Victory at any cost eh C...no matter how shallow.

MM

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 dismiss as trivial.

So, they were important enough to you to use them as a basis for questioning my credibility, but but trivial now that I have demonstrated that you were dead wrong. Got it.

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.

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 01:07 PM

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 01:13 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:17 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:19 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:19 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:22 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:24 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:25 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:27 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 01:32 PM

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.

MMTranslation: "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

3rd June 2007, 01:43 PM

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 to remove unattributed / unlinked quotes.

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 01:49 PM

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2462478&postcount=151

Corsair 115

3rd June 2007, 02:03 PM

"..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

3rd June 2007, 02:16 PM

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2647854#post2647854). 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

3rd June 2007, 02:17 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 02:21 PM

...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

3rd June 2007, 02:21 PM

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/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Eurocodes-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

3rd June 2007, 02:27 PM

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

3rd June 2007, 02:29 PM

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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...24&postcount=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&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

3rd June 2007, 02:40 PM

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.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 02:43 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2462478&postcount=151

Miragememories, you imply that I enjoy feeling the need to set vicious morons straight when they attempt to incorrectly revise history. I don't. I was quite happy spending no time with vicious morons. Further, I have lost thousands of dollars by debunking vicious morons when I could have been working. Saturday happens to be the busiest day of the week for tourism in New York City. Saturday "get togethers" at Ground Zero? You are sick. I go there to confront vicious morons who spit on the graves of murder victims and who disparage the people who choose to risk their lives to help others.

You think I'm happier because 2,749 people were murdered in a single day, in the city I love so much that I decided to make it my home, my avocation, and my profession? Where down the street 12 men who went to save people in the south tower didn't come back, and the last words of one of them were "It's a big job, honey. I love you." Where my neighbor puts out a single flower every day in memory of her son who died in the north tower?

You don't know me, you don't know my family, you don't know my friends, you don't know my neighbors, you don't know the people I volunteer with, you don't know my city.

Think I'm having a good time with this, you anonymous internet creep? Not man enough to apologize? Go to hell.

I did reply to you.

Come on Mark. This is too funny. All eyes are glued and of course Mark is going to calculate every response. Truth is something that only exists in privacy.

Yes yes yes Mark you are stating the obvious. I don't know you. You are an interesting person and if not for 9/11, I'm sure we could have a positive interesting dialogue.

Unlike you, I don't feel compelled to call people morons to support my beliefs.

I doubt you have lost thousands of dollars though your use of lost dollars to support your cause shows what you value.

You are a master manipulator I'll grant you that. That arts degree wasn't wasted was it?

When thousands of people are murdered and the evidence clearly indicates the wrong people are being accused of the crime, is it wrong to protest?

When I look at you, I'm not sure what I see. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe you feel the way you do because you are a flag waiving American who can't stand the pain of accepting that fellow Americans could have been involved in 9/11.

Well grow up Mark!

You aren't in Oz any more and it doesn't matter what you think or what I think. It's all coming to a boil regardless.

Enjoy your celebrity status while you can.

It won't change a thing and I don't give a rat's *** what you think of me!

MM

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 02:46 PM

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?

You've lost me twinstead.

Maybe you haven't noticed but I'm fielding more than a few posts here.

Clarifying what you are referring to would help me in my response.

Sorry to make you "crack a sweat".

MM

Architect

3rd June 2007, 02:47 PM

You know, of all the insults I've seen levelled at Arts degrees (and heaven knows there are many), this is the first I've ever seen/heard involving being manipulative rather than (say) working in fast food establishments or getting the diploma off the back of a cornflakes packet......

:duck:

beachnut

3rd June 2007, 02:51 PM

Speaking of research, other that mastering Google and "apple-C" what have you accomplished since 9/11 Marky?
MM
Back at you expert researcher. Is that your level? Google and "apple-C"? I figure you must have experience in what you call out. But since you asked, I ask back, what have you accomplished since 9/11?

Darn, I will answer it too, since I hate to ask question without giving it a try first. You have managed to mess up 9/11 and come up with ideas not supported in facts. Unlike the heroes of flight 93 who figured out 9/11 first, and took action, you have literally messed up everything and come up flat, with no viable information on 9/11. Did I get close?

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 02:58 PM

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.

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.

Oh come on stateofgrace are you that desperate to raise your post count that you have to respond to Gravy's stuff?

I don't sell DVDs!

This is really hilarious.

You don't care what I say, what evidence I present, how good my arguments are etc..admit it.

When I post you quickly glance at my words and then launch into your OCT rhetoric.

Well fair enough. If you and the rest of the gang can watch the videos of the WTC7 collapse and convince yourselves that that is a "ya right..of course" natural collapse..well more power to you. Obviously you are scoring the really good dope.

I've spent the better part of my life editing broadfcast video for the government and I just can't ignore what I know about how they can adjust politically unsatisfying material.

You folks are either naive or on the payroll of those responsible for 9/11.

MM

R.Mackey

3rd June 2007, 02:59 PM

Well fair enough. If you and the rest of the gang can watch the videos of the WTC7 collapse and convince yourselves that that is a "ya right..of course" natural collapse..well more power to you. Obviously you are scoring the really good dope.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Your posts are rife with those, and very, very short on fact or informed opinion. Please go back and make the needed corrections. Thanks.

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 03:00 PM

Yes yes yes Mark you are stating the obvious. I don't know you. You are an interesting person and if not for 9/11, I'm sure we could have a positive interesting dialogue.With the exception of 9/11 deniers, I avoid spending time with pathological liars who support terrorists and who get their kicks by falsely accusing people of mass murder.

When thousands of people are murdered and the evidence clearly indicates the wrong people are being accused of the crime, is it wrong to protest?I wonder when MM will present this clear evidence.

I wonder what he and the rest of the "truth" movement are waiting for. Why don't they just shut us up with this compelling evidence that they're hoarding?

I wonder what makes them think they have such evidence, when all rational people know they don't.

What a bizarre, sad bunch they are.

stateofgrace

3rd June 2007, 03:03 PM

Oh come on stateofgrace are you that desperate to raise your post count that you have to respond to Gravy's stuff?

I don't sell DVDs!

This is really hilarious.

You don't care what I say, what evidence I present, how good my arguments are etc..admit it.

When I post you quickly glance at my words and then launch into your OCT rhetoric.

Well fair enough. If you and the rest of the gang can watch the videos of the WTC7 collapse and convince yourselves that that is a "ya right..of course" natural collapse..well more power to you. Obviously you are scoring the really good dope.

I've spent the better part of my life editing broadfcast video for the government and I just can't ignore what I know about how they can adjust politically unsatisfying material.

You folks are either naive or on the payroll of those responsible for 9/11.

MM

Save your appeals to emotions I am not your friend and I will not enter into a binding brotherly bond with you.

You are accusing people of mass murder. A list of possible suspects as been put to you.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...24&postcount=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3)

Now for the third time of asking answer the question. You have claimed it all one big lie, who is lying?

Who is responsible MM, ?

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 03:04 PM

You don't care what I say, what evidence I present, how good my arguments are etc..admit it.

When I post you quickly glance at my words and then launch into your OCT rhetoric.Spiraling further into nonsense and self-pity. Mirage will find numerous posts in this thread that refute his claim, and he will dismiss them, as he dismisses all rational, fact-filled explanations that interfere with his fantasies.

beachnut

3rd June 2007, 03:13 PM

Well fair enough. If you and the rest of the gang can watch the videos of the WTC7 collapse and convince yourselves that that is a "ya right..of course" natural collapse..well more power to you. Obviously you are scoring the really good dope.MM
The dope must be you problem. If you were not doing so much dope you could go to the police and turn over the evidence you and Charlie Sheen have proving the 9/11 was an inside job. I think you must be on too much dope to go to the police. Right?

See, you are the one on too much dope to notice in the video there are no sounds of explosives during WTC7 collapse, since it was due to fire, which would have cooked off your mystery explosives well before "zero hour 9 am". Fire destroys the strength of steel, have you been in a coma, or smoking too much dope?

You can not even discuss the mph/KIAS issue and try to talk about the very things you bring up. How long will you be on this truther quest without facts?

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 03:18 PM

Argument from personal incredulity.

Your posts are rife with those, and very, very short on fact or informed opinion. Please go back and make the needed corrections. Thanks.

Oh climb off your high horse RM.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Do you wipe up with the american flag or what?

MM

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 03:20 PM

Spiraling further into nonsense and self-pity. Mirage will find numerous posts in this thread that refute his claim, and he will dismiss them, as he dismisses all rational, fact-filled explanations that interfere with his fantasies.

Did you actually say something there Mark or was that just the 'shrooms talking?

MM

R.Mackey

3rd June 2007, 03:21 PM

Oh climb off your high horse RM.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Do you wipe up with the american flag or what?

MM

You've got to be kidding me.

Reported.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 03:22 PM

Save your appeals to emotions I am not your friend and I will not enter into a binding brotherly bond with you.

You are accusing people of mass murder. A list of possible suspects as been put to you.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...24&postcount=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3)

Now for the third time of asking answer the question. You have claimed it all one big lie, who is lying?

Who is responsible MM, ?

Well you sound like a good candidate.

Where were you on 9/11?

MM

Architect

3rd June 2007, 03:22 PM

Were you all just planning to fling insults around, in which case I'll awa to bed (its late here in the UK), or were we going to get around to a substantive discussion at some stage?

:p

beachnut

3rd June 2007, 03:23 PM

Did you actually say something there Mark or was that just the 'shrooms talking?

MM
There you go again with the drug stuff. Stop the drugs, then you can contact the police with the evidence to break 9/11 wide open. Have you tried to do that yet? Have you gone to the police with this damning evidence to prove 9/11 was an inside job? Are you afraid the police will get you for your drug use? Is that why you have not broke this story yet? Or did you finally notice you have no facts that are useful for anything? Which is it?

Architect

3rd June 2007, 03:25 PM

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

I fear that the lack of support for the controlled demolition hypotheses amongst the professional and hence qualified construction industry professionals does indeed concur.

Where were you on 9/11?

At work, with the rest of the tall buildings team, watching it on a poor quality streaming video and all agreeing that collapse was inevitable given what was clearly extensive damage.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 03:25 PM

You've got to be kidding me.

Reported.

Oh dear.

I guess you didn't like me reporting your sinking to slander as a means of defending your arguments RM?

How many buildings have you knocked down with your lawn hose lately?

MM

stateofgrace

3rd June 2007, 03:31 PM

Well you sound like a good candidate.

Where were you on 9/11?

MM

Even your attempts are humour are lame.

For the now fourth time of asking, who is lying MM?

Please review the list and tell me who you are accusing of mass murder.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...24&postcount=3 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2525424&postcount=3)

It is all one big lie according to you MM, Who is lying? (Fifth time)

R.Mackey

3rd June 2007, 03:39 PM

Oh dear.

I guess you didn't like me reporting your sinking to slander as a means of defending your arguments RM?

How many buildings have you knocked down with your lawn hose lately?

MM

Unless you call explaining how 570 MPH at 0 MSL is an entirely achievable speed for a 767 "slander," I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nor do I care. Welcome to Ignore.

Best of luck with your search for the truth -- the real one. If you're very lucky, some day you may merely feel silly about what you used to believe.

pomeroo

3rd June 2007, 04:00 PM

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

Many of the problems of our post-literate society stem from the growing acceptability of hatred as a response. We "hate" an actor whose films are bad; we "hate" a co-worker whose opinions are valued higher than our own: we "hate" a politician with whose policies we disagree. It never occurs to many of us that rational people do not require intense emotion to undergird their judgments.

Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? Do you believe that his aim of dismantling al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was reprehensible because terrorist groups deserve to have a national base for their operations? If not, why the "hatred"? Do you believe that transforming Iraq into a liberal democracy that doesn't threaten its neighbors was an ignoble goal? If your only problems are with the ineffective and incompetently-applied methods to achieve that goal, again, why the hatred? Do you buy the fantasist idiocy that the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the murders of three thousand civilians, and the plunging of the national economy into recession served no higher purpose than lining the pockets of a few of Dick Cheney's cronies? If so, tell us why so many thousands chose to be complicit in the scheme. Were they compelled against their wills? Compelled by whom? What sort of invisible army can knock into line all the Democrats in the military, the FAA, FEMA, NIST, all the air traffic controllers, the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., all the forensic examiners, the Boeing Corporation, the seismologists, the independent researchers of ASCE, the media outlets that printed the names and seating positions of the hijackers--the list goes on. As every sane person recognizes at a glance, the whole conspiracy sand castle is a preposterous, lunatic fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense. Do you really believe it, or is it merely something you say reflexively? Who might the puppet-masters be? Did they surround Bill Clinton, whose policies and attitude differed sharply from Bush's? Will America's behavior toward terrorist groups in the Middle East change under a President Obama, or will he behave exactly the same as a President Giuliani? Is there an actual threat from radical Islam?

Your beliefs, as you have expressed them on this forum, appear unfalsifiable. You swallow uncritically a whole range of thoroughly discredited myths and you remain impervious to fact-based arguments. Is there any reason to regard your promotion of views that are unsupported by even a shred of evidence as anything but mindless "rage against the machine"?

Gravy

3rd June 2007, 04:04 PM

Oh climb off your high horse RM.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Do you wipe up with the american flag or what?

MMThat whole "I don't stoop to name-calling" act wore off pretty quickly.

At least there's a Stundie-worthy quote in that misarable post.

And still no word on when Miragememories and his club will be presenting their irrefutable evidence.

When?

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 04:05 PM

Unless you call explaining how 570 MPH at 0 MSL is an entirely achievable speed for a 767 "slander," I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nor do I care. Welcome to Ignore.

Best of luck with your search for the truth -- the real one. If you're very lucky, some day you may merely feel silly about what you used to believe.

I was referring to the moderator deleting your undisciplined remarks RM.

If the day you are referring to ever arrives, I'm sure your ego will be in greater pain than mine.

MM

twinstead

3rd June 2007, 04:07 PM

MM can I assume that you think that ANYBODY, no matter how qualified, who doesn't think the WTC collapse are due to CD has only half a brain?

chillzero

3rd June 2007, 04:09 PM

We are receiving a volume of complaints about this thread. I would be moving several posts to AAH, but at the moment they are needed where they are for a related matter.

Should this bickering continue, the thread will be set to moderated, and pruned for content.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 04:18 PM

Many of the problems of our post-literate society stem from the growing acceptability of hatred as a response. We "hate" an actor whose films are bad; we "hate" a co-worker whose opinions are valued higher than our own: we "hate" a politician with whose policies we disagree. It never occurs to many of us that rational people do not require intense emotion to undergird their judgments.

Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? Do you believe that his aim of dismantling al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan was reprehensible because terrorist groups deserve to have a national base for their operations? If not, why the "hatred"? Do you believe that transforming Iraq into a liberal democracy that doesn't threaten its neighbors was an ignoble goal? If your only problems are with the ineffective and incompetently-applied methods to achieve that goal, again, why the hatred? Do you buy the fantasist idiocy that the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, the murders of three thousand civilians, and the plunging of the national economy into recession served no higher purpose than lining the pockets of a few of Dick Cheney's cronies? If so, tell us why so many thousands chose to be complicit in the scheme. Were they compelled against their wills? Compelled by whom? What sort of invisible army can knock into line all the Democrats in the military, the FAA, FEMA, NIST, all the air traffic controllers, the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., all the forensic examiners, the Boeing Corporation, the seismologists, the independent researchers of ASCE, the media outlets that printed the names and seating positions of the hijackers--the list goes on. As every sane person recognizes at a glance, the whole conspiracy sand castle is a preposterous, lunatic fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense. Do you really believe it, or is it merely something you say reflexively? Who might the puppet-masters be? Did they surround Bill Clinton, whose policies and attitude differed sharply from Bush's? Will America's behavior toward terrorist groups in the Middle East change under a President Obama, or will he behave exactly the same as a President Giuliani? Is there an actual threat from radical Islam?

Your beliefs, as you have expressed them on this forum, appear unfalsifiable. You swallow uncritically a whole range of thoroughly discredited myths and you remain impervious to fact-based arguments. Is there any reason to regard your promotion of views that are unsupported by even a shred of evidence as anything but mindless "rage against the machine"?

Whoa man from Castle Dracula!

From what are you quoting?

You got your special "hate" rant speech going and you never looked to see if the starter's pistol went off.

" Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? "

Nope, I never said that. So you can take all the ranting that follows and recycle it somewhere else.

" Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense."

Okay, he's a well disguised genius and all round thoughtful president. There's no way he's not his own man. Everything he says and does is his own creation and anyone who has a contrary opinion better be wary of the savage and ruthless Bushy intellect. I love it. How could I have been so wrong pomeroo? Why that Bush is such a fox. He had me hook, line and sinker.

Sorry but that was most amusing but whenever I look I keep seeing Cheney's hand up Bush's *ss.

MM

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 04:20 PM

MM can I assume that you think that ANYBODY, no matter how qualified, who doesn't think the WTC collapse are due to CD has only half a brain?

No.

I mean assume whatever you want but don't do it on my account.

Make sure you get Gravy's permission first.

MM

pomeroo

3rd June 2007, 04:35 PM

Miragememories, I posted a fairly long response to one of your posts. It asks several questions, all of which you will--as usual--ignore.

Let me ask one question that gets to the heart of all rationalist vs. fantasist confrontations:

R. Mackey is an extremely bright guy who happens to be a working scientist.

Your own intelligence is, at best, average and you manifestly have no background in science.

You presume to question him on matters that lie within his professional expertise, matters that you know little or nothing about.

Your conviction that you are right and he is wrong is unshakable.

Tell us why this counterintuitive state of affairs should prevail.

Two possibilities present themselves:

Mackey secretly agrees with you and is suppressing the truth. He offers only fallacious arguments and fabricates bogus evidence because he, a real scientist, can't be fooled.

Or...

All those years of training have gone to waste: Mackey is simply incapable of recognizing things that are obvious to you. Appearances to the contrary, you, and not the NASA engineer, actually have a firmer grasp of scientific principles.

Now, it all boils down to demonstrating why you are right and Mackey is wrong. We have seen many, many instances of Mackey exposing you as a fool and a liar. Tell us why we were deceived. Provide for us an unambiguous example of Mackey being demonstrably incorrect in some assertion he's made. State, as plainly as you can, what you know that he doesn't.

C'mon, don't always duck the tough questions. Show some cajones for once.

pomeroo

3rd June 2007, 04:49 PM

Whoa man from Castle Dracula!

From what are you quoting?

Your confusion is understandable. As someone who has no thoughts in his head, only empty slogans, you can't quite come to terms with an actual opinion that is not merely a temper tantrum.

You got your special "hate" rant speech going and you never looked to see if the starter's pistol went off.

Whoops! I'm afraid that too many of us will have noticed where you talk about "hating" Bush's handlers. The problem with being a conspiracy LIAR is that you start lying far too often. People notice.

" Your "hatred" of Bush's policies stems from what? "

Nope, I never said that. So you can take all the ranting that follows and recycle it somewhere else.

Ah, so your argument then becomes something like, I hate Bush's handlers, but not the policies they've implemented. Uh-huh. You hate THEM, but not the policies. Could you flesh out that concept for us? I fear that many of us think that you're lying again.

" Your opinion that Bush is a "puppet" for others is based on nothing and makes little sense."

Okay, he's a well disguised genius and all round thoughtful president. There's no way he's not his own man. Everything he says and does is his own creation and anyone who has a contrary opinion better be wary of the savage and ruthless Bushy intellect. I love it. How could I have been so wrong pomeroo? Why that Bush is such a fox. He had me hook, line and sinker.

Fascinating. If we ignore your reflexive drivel and repeat my sentence, we find that your opinion is based on nothing. The people who actually know Bush disagree strongly with you, but, as those opinions are based on reality, you will continue to ignore them.

Sorry but that was most amusing but whenever I look I keep seeing Cheney's hand up Bush's *ss.

MM

You see much that isn't there. It's the millstone around your neck.

Yes, you're quite correct: my criticisms of your deranged fantasy were devastating. No one expected you to do anything but ignore them totally. Let me repeat:

Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

Miragememories

3rd June 2007, 04:56 PM

You see much that isn't there. It's the millstone around your neck.

Yes, you're quite correct: my criticisms of your deranged fantasy were devastating. No one expected you to do anything but ignore them totally. Let me repeat:

Your imaginary conspiracy could not possibly exist. You profess to hold a belief that is arrant nonsense, and yet, nothing can shake its hold over your mind. Explain.

When you finish talking to the mirror..I'm over here.

MM

pomeroo

3rd June 2007, 05:18 PM

When you finish talking to the mirror..I'm over here.

MM

No, you cowardly ignoramus, I'm talking to YOU. Stop running and answer the questions.

Your imaginary conspiracy is absurdly bloated. IT CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

Show us where Mackey has been wrong about ANY scientific matter.

R.Mackey

3rd June 2007, 05:29 PM

No, you cowardly ignoramus, I'm talking to YOU. Stop running and answer the questions.

Your imaginary conspiracy is absurdly bloated. IT CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

Show us where Mackey has been wrong about ANY scientific matter.

If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2659115#post2659115). It isn't science, but it's another lie.

Corsair 115

3rd June 2007, 06:10 PM

I would just like to take a moment to say thanks to R. Mackey for his assist in post #334 where he backed up my claim by citing the relevant posts by Miragememories.

Minadin

3rd June 2007, 09:01 PM

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM

Hey there, MM. I went over to LC a few months ago and tried to argue my point in the most polite way that I could imagine. I"m not sure where i went wrong, but I was eventually "Gone'd". Perhaps you could let me know why:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346)

Why, because you were being "disingenuous" and had a "hidden agenda", of course! What does that mean in MM speech? It means you were banned for thinking differently than they do.

BS

Thinking differently is what the JREF Conspiracy forum objects to.

In LC we only ask that you be prepared to have an honest discussion.

MM

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

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 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7589&view=findpost&p=13318559).

But you haven't been banned!

And while I have attacked your posts and motives, I haven't resorting to name calling.

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

MM

I quoted every relevant post just so that everyone can see the gymnastics you must do to rationalize your original assertion.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? The leaders of your movement and the administrators of your forum actually are what you accuse us of being, and what you claim to be against. Notwithstanding the idea that stifling honest debate is intellectually dishonest, conspiracists seem to project this sort of behavior (among others) onto their opponents, rather unfairly.

No conspiracy theorist has ever been banned from this forum for being a conspiracy theorist. Can you say the same about skeptics and the Loose Change forum? How can you possibly stand by your original statement, honestly?

Belz...

4th June 2007, 04:55 AM

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.

Sincere dialogue ? You're claiming that every engineer, architect and building and demolition specialist in the world is kept silent by threats to their lives by shadowy operatives from the evil US government, and you're expecting sincerity ? Maybe you should practice what you preach.

But you can start by answering these:

What part of "the angle is the most important factor" don't you get ?

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!
Rhetoric. I can claim things like this, too. In fact, I can repeat them so many times that you're likely to eventually believe me, seeing as how you seem to think that repetition makes right.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.
That's fine. What's not fine is that they let their bias and paranoia guide their opinions, when far more knowledgeable and experienced people continuously show them wrong. And no, I don't mean me.

The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.
Again, speculation. It's fine that you bring this idea to the table, but would you mind substantiating it with evidence ? Instead of the "lilly white" USA you say we paint, you seem to be using broad black strokes.

Belz...

4th June 2007, 04:59 AM

Throughout history is a long time. Heroes have always been few and whistle blowers have most often been ostracized as disloyal, untrustworthy "rats".

There are many reasons why potential 9/11 whistle blowers haven't come forward.

So many reasons why you don't have any evidence that they exist at all.

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.

It would also correspond to reality.

It's all "good" Gravy.

We know you are an accomplished 'cut 'n paste' artist.

So you didn't read his post ?

Belz...

4th June 2007, 07:08 AM

You folks are either naive or on the payroll of those responsible for 9/11.

Despicable. Are you truly so ignorant, so self-absorbed and so idiotic as to think that the people who disagree with you are automatically paid by your imaginary enemy ? Really ? Or are you just lying, again ?

And this, after you said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658666&postcount=325):

If you honestly believe what you say, than you are being true to yourself. That's fair enough.

Anyone with a brain can see that collapse for what it is.

Indeed.

Well you sound like a good candidate.

Where were you on 9/11?

And this, after you said this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658042&postcount=281):

After a while I assume you are mostly concerned with tossing out zingers rather than seeking any sincere dialogue.

You're just a troll, it seems.

Miragememories

4th June 2007, 10:46 AM

If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2659115#post2659115). It isn't science, but it's another lie.

Okay R.Mackey, here's a few of your lies:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82920&page=5
Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2647854#post2647854)
Actually Dr. Kausel says the radar results were 10% higher than his calculation (which is close enough to be considered "excellent agreement"). How interesting.
How interesting that you choose again to take his paper out of context. I believe that's called "cherry picking" or "lying".

The complete text from that portion of Dr. Kausel's paper was:

"The radar speeds are basically 10% larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed, during their final approach, the airplanes whose transponders had been disabled were flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (i.e. the height of impact), an altitude that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of flight prior to collision.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2647854#post2647854)
Nothing about his reservations was restricted to WTC 1.The lies are yours my friend!

I never said exclusively WTC1. WTC2 was the subject of my post and WTC2 was the one Dr. Kausel said he could do his calculations with greater confidence. He had no issues with video standards (no PAL or SECAM video) as it was shot with the North American standard, NTSC. Virtually all of his issues were with SECAM or PAL which would have been referring to the Naudet video. His only issue that he referred to about the WTC 2 flight was some of the video shot in slow motion, hardly a major hindrance since most of the available footage was normal speed NTSC.

To quote Dr. Kausel yet again:

"The velocity of the two Boeing 767-200 planes that were crashed onto the Twin Towers is not precisely known, especially the speed of the North Tower plane."

"The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2647854#post2647854)
I promised you some examples. Here they are:

First, China Airlines 006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006), a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.
Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Again you misrepresent the truth:

"The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet."

Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2647854#post2647854)
Second, Egpyt Air 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990) nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.
That speed achieved while diving to it's destruction, nose down in a deliberate gravity-assisted crash initiated by the relief officer, hardly compares to the relatively level flight of the 767 that struck WTC 2.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2647854#post2647854)
As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.
What a big lie that is! As the long shot video clearly shows, UA-175 was fying relatively level in the last mile as it closed in on WTC2. It was certainly not in a power dive!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Oh and regarding your most recent lie:

If you feel like it, Ron, you might also ask him what "undisciplined remarks" of mine were moderated out, as he claimed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2659115#post2659115). It isn't science, but it's another lie.

AutoModAction

Hi Miragememories,

The post that you created in the following thread has been deleted

-----
Post ID: [quote=R.Mackey;2652792]Correct as usual.
"Edited by Lisa Simpson: Inappropriate remark removed."
I've been pimp-sl...
Thread: NIST misrepresented WTC2 fire conditions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83659)
Reason: quoting deleted part of post
-----

This is an automated message, please do not reply.

Regards,
JREF FORUM Moderating Team

Cough cough. Ahh you were saying R. Mackey??

MM

aggle-rithm

4th June 2007, 11:12 AM

What a big lie that is! As the long shot video clearly shows, UA-175 was fying relatively level in the last mile as it closed in on WTC2. It was certainly not in a power dive!

You're saying that the plane was NOT diving at 10,000 feet per minute? Maybe you should do the math and find out what the slope of descent would be, even at your conservative speed of 540 mph.

Miragememories

4th June 2007, 11:18 AM

You're saying that the plane was NOT diving at 10,000 feet per minute? Maybe you should do the math and find out what the slope of descent would be, even at your conservative speed of 540 mph.

Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?

MM

uk_dave

4th June 2007, 11:28 AM

Hey Miragememories,

How's the buzzword challenge going?

I note that you still post over on LCF. Still trying to get 'drop' adopted as a buzzword within the 'truth' movement, huh?

Opps sorry it should have been 'DROP'

Think that maybe normal people don't have a problem with the concept of one floor assembly falling...ooops sorry ..'DROP'ing 10ft onto another and, in the process, exceeding the design load for that floor?

Oh and while you're at it, what's with the 'suspension design'?

Just another miragememories buzzword?

aggle-rithm

4th June 2007, 11:29 AM

Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?

MM

See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You have the tools at your disposal to determine what the slope of a 10,000 feet per minute dive is, and compare it to your picture, but you choose not to. Instead, you choose to eyeball it and come to a conclusion based on a subjective opinion.

To answer your question: The rate of the dive is clearly changing in the picture, so it's clear the pilot was coming out of a dive. At the time of impact, the slope appears to be about 1/7. 10,000 feet per second is about 1/5 at around 550 mph (rough figures). From this, it certainly looks like the pilot was at a steeper slope just before making his final approach, so I suppose that leveling off might slow it down a little. But not much, and for all intents and purposes, the momentum gained from the power dive would still be in effect.

(Feel free to correct my math if it is wrong.)

beachnut

4th June 2007, 11:36 AM

Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Again you misrepresent the truth:

"The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet."
MMYep the pilots messed up and let the plane go into a dive, they messed up. All day their only job is watch the plane and they were not ready for the problem of the day.

But you have not even got close to explaining the speed of a 747. You must try getting better and using MACH number at altitiude above 27,500 feet will be better than some mph you found on google.

Next take a pilot with you. The max cruise speed of a 747 is .85 MACH. The plane can do .92 MACH if you need to escape from some emergency. .85 MACH is about 586 mph, not very close to your 640 mph figure, even the .92 MACH would only be 634 mph. Your cruise speed on 640 comes from where? I would call any speed past .92 well over the max speed and the crew was lucky to recover the jet if they were over 650 mph, ask a pilot. Further, the airspeed below 27,500 feet would be much lower, in the range of 407 mph. Therefore if the Jet even without engine was going 650 mph, this puts it well above the max speed in the lower altitudes of 407. The 747, like the 757/767, are not meant to past 407 mph at lower altitudes below 27,000 feet. Facts are a bear when you mess them up.

Let me explain, at high speed a slight increase in speed can bring on major problems. The 747 exceeding .92 MACH, any amount, is well past the max speed. 650 is well above max speed, you are in the range of test pilot stuff, carry a parachute. Sorry to be nit picking but you mentioned the 9500 feet and at that altitude we are talking 650 is 250 mph above the max speed, oops. Tons above. But I bet it had slowed down or suffered major damage. Did our test pilots suffer damage to the jet that day? I will check.

Speed in the jet are complicated, they are on the instruments so we remember them, but a good understanding of them and your plane helps. What are the major truther site readings on the speed of 175?

Max cruising speed of 747 is 586 mph, .85 mach. 650 is well over. You are still confused over maximum speed and cruise speed. ?

OOPS! let me review, 650 is not much over the max cruise speed of 640 mph, as MM said? But 640 is not the top cruise speed, 586 is the top. Like I said any speed over the max is dangerous, and the proof is the flight we are talking about.

The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by two inches, and the landing gear and nearby airframe had much damage. Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_stabilizer) had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_%28aircraft%29) had been lost along with its actuator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuator), which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained.

Significant damage and they only exceed the speed a little?

9/11 the aircraft all were speeding just prior to impact, speeding for only several seconds. That over speed condition on 9/11 for the low altitudes was around 407 mph. Not some cruise speed you look up on google, the max speed the planes are not to exceed is 350 to 355 KCAS. That is good for all altitudes; you need a pilot or navigator to translate that into real speeds. 175 best impact speed I think is 570 to 590 mph. What do you think?

If the terrorist had not hit the buildings and kept speeding, their jet would start to fall apart, like this jet did.

the report and a photo of what happens when you go too fast for too long.. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html

CurtC

4th June 2007, 11:47 AM

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?
My estimates for this picture is that over the last four images of the plane, it travelled 402 pixels horizontally while dropping 28 pixels vertically. Assuming that the images were stitched together correctly, that the camera was level, and that the camera shows the correct aspect ratio (a vertical pixel represents the same distance as a horizontal pixel), then at 540 mph (792 ft/sec), this would be an average descent rate of 3300 fpm.

It's entirely credible to me that someone who intends to crash the plane into a tall building would flatten out the dive near the end, which would retain the speed of the dive, but be easier to control with visual cues.

Belz...

4th June 2007, 12:09 PM

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?

What it looks like is irrelevant.

I'm sure even you can calculate the angle of descent of a plane given that we know the speed and the feet per minute.

Given that the plane was probably leveling off for the final approach, I don't see what your problem is.

beachnut

4th June 2007, 12:39 PM

Look at the picture Gravy so kindly stitched together.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Does that look like 10,000 feet per minute power dive to you?

MM
You are arguing over the credibility of speed stuff? He said it was credible for a 767/757 to go as fast as 570 to 590 with no problem and he used the following statement.
As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.
This argument is not about what the plane is doing but what it can do. Can it speed? Can it go 590 mph or fast and hit the building? Yes it did hit and it hit fast.

I will go further on this idea of it being credible for a 767 to fast. I will say in level flight the planes could reach these speeds with no problem using the engines, no descent required. The best record is flight 77 which rolled out with engines at low cruise speed and the plane was at 300 KIAS. The terrorist pushed the throttles to the firewall and reached over 530 mph when he hit the Pentagon at a 4 to 6 degree descent. With a slight decent, 77 went from 344 mph to 532 mph in 20 seconds, slight decent and engines. What is the point of arguing over what he said, when the main object of his statement is the credibility of speed.

Gravy

4th June 2007, 01:20 PM

Minadin

4th June 2007, 01:30 PM

See, this is why no one takes you seriously. You have the tools at your disposal to determine what the slope of a 10,000 feet per minute dive is, and compare it to your picture, but you choose not to. Instead, you choose to eyeball it and come to a conclusion based on a subjective opinion.

To answer your question: The rate of the dive is clearly changing in the picture, so it's clear the pilot was coming out of a dive. At the time of impact, the slope appears to be about 1/7. 10,000 feet per second is about 1/5 at around 550 mph (rough figures). From this, it certainly looks like the pilot was at a steeper slope just before making his final approach, so I suppose that leveling off might slow it down a little. But not much, and for all intents and purposes, the momentum gained from the power dive would still be in effect.

(Feel free to correct my math if it is wrong.)

I think you meant 10,000 feet per minute, which is 167 ft/sec. (also since that was the figure used beforehand in your post) A plane travelling at 550 mph is going about 807 ft/sec (550*5280 / 60*60) and if you assume that that figure is the hypotenuse of your triangle (air speed as opposed to ground speed) that means that the ground covered as it drops 167 ft in that second would be roughly 790 ft. If the slope during the dive was constant, it would be about 1 : 4.75.

If you are using the 550 mph number as the ground speed of the plane, the slope flattens to 1 : 4.95.

Either way, your math seems pretty accurate here, since those could both be rounded to roughly 1 : 5.

aggle-rithm

4th June 2007, 01:38 PM

I think you meant 10,000 feet per minute

Yes.

aggle-rithm

4th June 2007, 01:55 PM

FWIW, according to the radar mode C returns, (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf) flight 175's average descent rate in its last 6 minutes was about 4,600 fpm, at a fairly steady rate.

So, could it be called a "power dive"? Depends on your definition, I guess. However, I suspect there's a great deal of potential energy released when a several-hundred-thousand pound object is dropped 27,600 feet.

It doesn't really matter, though, because the only reason MM focuses on details like this is to divert attention away from his train wreck of a theory (if you can call it that) about what happened on 9/11.

Minadin

4th June 2007, 02:26 PM

4,600 fpm in descent is still a pretty decent slope, it's just closer to 1 : 10, which is steeper than most people would think. It's still steeper than most ramps are allowed to be in buildings, for instance.

R.Mackey

5th June 2007, 09:30 AM

beachnut

5th June 2007, 06:24 PM

In case you wondered, the 10,000 feet per minute figure is quoted here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_175), and thus may be a peak descent rate or simply an overestimate. The Radar C returns are subject to some inaccuracy, but 4,600 feet per minute sustained sounds quite plausible.

That's still a considerable descent. Add to that the throttled-up engines, and you have, by definition, a power dive.

I would expect the terrorists to dive slightly ahead of their target, then level off, since they would be more concerned about overflying the target than building up maximum speed. Nonetheless, aircraft do not instantly decelerate to their normal speed upon leveling off. Since the engines were spooled up, it's not clear that Flight 175 decelerated at all once it leveled.

If there's a single person here who still thinks a 767 couldn't possibly have attained 570 MPH in that situation, I doubt that anything will ever convince you.
Not much to add, but between thinning the apples out, I was thinking about need for speed. Laments of a frustrated fighter pilot (ie a tanker toad with 4 engines driving the tricycle with 10 tires.)

I think the plane could exceed 590 mph at 700 feet level fight with just the engines. In a KC-135 I was at 100 feet 300 mph, and I pushed up the throttles and we exceed our max speed of 405 mph before we got to the reviewing stand and we had old engines, 4x11,000 pounds of thrust. I caught the Copilot's hand in the throttles when I slapped them to Idle, so we would not catch the SR-71 doing his fly by in front of us. If we had remained above our max speed we would have damaged our aircraft. Most likely we would start loosing skin under the wing leading edge. I was mainly interested in making noise and have smoke come out of the engines, I was surprised we exceed max speed so quickly, but then our engines love 170 feet MSL. We could do .9 Mach at altitude but only 350 KCAS at low attitude, about 405 to almost 600 mph are the KC-135 limits.

The 767/757 have a lot of thrust compared to a KC-135 and could accelerate faster than the old plane I flew. For a good feel you can look at the data from 77 at the Pentagon. It accelerated from 300 KIAS to 463 KIAS in 20 seconds. Over 536 mph. 77 was descending at 4 to 6 degrees. In a KC-135 at 3 degrees decent angle, we can maintain 300 KIAS with the throttles at Idle. (a jet can glide pretty far without engines, use 3 degrees to get an idea)

LashL

19th August 2007, 11:29 PM

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

Now that you've returned to this sub-forum, Miragememories, after a lengthy absence most likely due to embarrassment on your part, would you be so kind as to elaborate on your unsubstantiated post above? What are the "number of points" that you claim I was wrong about? Surely, you have had plenty of time since June 3 to acquire "more than piecemeal information" about the building that you have worked in for several years (you know, the one in which you claim to have been in the 22nd storey stairwell even though the building is not even 22 storeys high), and about the 6 storey building next door that you claim is 22 storeys high.

Please, enlighten all of us who post in and/or read this sub-forum by posting what it is that you allege I got wrong. Be sure to post your evidence of that 6 storey building being a 22 storey building in disguise.

For those who don't know what this is about, here is the basic sequence of posts that sets it out:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656736&postcount=245
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656795&postcount=256
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656819&postcount=260
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656840&postcount=264
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656864&postcount=266
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656882&postcount=270
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656912&postcount=272
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2656932&postcount=275
*post 275 is particularly telling regarding Miragememories' inability to distinguish fantasy from reality
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658138&postcount=288
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658157&postcount=291
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658578&postcount=307
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658598&postcount=311
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658636&postcount=320
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658651&postcount=322
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2658684&postcount=329

Oh, and this thread is also very instructive in seeing the extremes of dishonesty and self-delusion to which Miragememories will extend himself. The parts where Miragememories (who has no training or experience in engineering, mechanics, architecture, structures, construction, etc.) thinks he knows more than RMackey and thinks that he somehow discredited RMackey with his tinhat nonsense (when he did, of course, no such thing), are absolutely hilarious.

This thread might even qualify as the acme of Miragememories' unmitigated hubris when it comes to someone exhibiting an over-inflated ego, since in reality, the man (Miragememories) has no basis whatsoever upon which to even purport to rub shoulders with others who are far and away his intellectual superiors by several orders of magnitude.

All in all, it's a pretty amusing read.

e^n

19th August 2007, 11:50 PM

Oh, and this thread is also very instructive in seeing the extremes of dishonesty and self-delusion to which Miragememories will extend himself. The parts where Miragememories (who has no training or experience in engineering, mechanics, architecture, structures, construction, etc.) thinks he knows more than RMackey thinks that he somehow discredited RMackey with his tinhat nonsense, are absolutely priceless.

This thread might even qualify as the acme of Miragememories' unmitigated hubris when it comes to someone exhibiting an over-inflated ego, since in reality, the man has no basis whatsoever upon which to even purport to rub shoulders with others who are far and away his intellectual superiors by several orders of magnitude.

I feel it also prudent to mention that MirageMemories has also dismissed the opinions of Newtons Bit, a structural engineer based on his incredulity about single column failure in non federal buildings. The fact that Newtons Bit does this for a living apparently having no effect on MMs logic.

Incidentally while MM has claimed to have taken engineering at university he also claimed to be an editor by trade so I think it may be fair to label him as a failed engineering student, unless of course he passed and became an editor for an unrelated reason. He refuses to disclose it however while demanding the qualifications of others. Oh the hypocrisy!

LashL

20th August 2007, 12:14 AM

I feel it also prudent to mention that MirageMemories has also dismissed the opinions of Newtons Bit, a structural engineer based on his incredulity about single column failure in non federal buildings. The fact that Newtons Bit does this for a living apparently having no effect on MMs logic.

Incidentally while MM has claimed to have taken engineering at university he also claimed to be an editor by trade so I think it may be fair to label him as a failed engineering student, unless of course he passed and became an editor for an unrelated reason. He refuses to disclose it however while demanding the qualifications of others. Oh the hypocrisy!

Good point. Miragememories has long been very inconsistent in his posts about his alleged education, so it is probably safe to dismiss his claims to a university education as entirely unfounded at present. I remember his posts about having gone to college, and I remember his subsequent claims on this forum and others about allegedly having gone to university.

College and University are two very different things in Canada, though, and no Canadian would interchange the two or mistakenly conflate the two. As a result of his inconsistent posts and his demonstrated dishonesty on unrelated points, I would not accept that Miragememories has ever even attended university, let alone graduated from one, without solid evidence.

It is not surprising to me at all that he (Miragememories) dismisses the views of those who have extensive knowledge and expertise (e.g. RMackey and NewtonsBit) in areas where he has none himself. That is, after all, the twoofer way: handwaving, obfuscating, refusing to comprehend reality, fibbing, pretending to have expertise they actually have nonse, and hoping that nobody notices.