Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
JREF says WE have too much free time on our hands?; JREF presents: MST3K, LC2 Edition
Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM (1,025 Views)
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102124

Notice Mark Roberts was the first in line to applaud it.

co-author - SilentKnight
 
Hey, the first chapter took us several months!


Those silly JFERs are so cute sometimes.

:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

I don't see why you've labelled the topic 'JREF presents'. In actuality a member of the JREF forums presents something, the JREF is a non profit foundation set up by James Randi. It seems weird that so often people are simply referred to as 'JREFers' as if this is some sort of negative connotation. Surely something more specific would be appropriate?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
exponent
 
I don't see why you've labelled the topic 'JREF presents'. In actuality a member of the JREF forums presents something, the JREF is a non profit foundation set up by James Randi. It seems weird that so often people are simply referred to as 'JREFers' as if this is some sort of negative connotation. Surely something more specific would be appropriate?


I'm just following their bad example of paintbrushing as "twoofers" all those who question the 9/11 Commission Report.

I guess 9/11 Family Members, the Jersey Girls and Bob McIlvaine are "twoofers" as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Well done that was an enjoyable read!
Either way it's a fine example of creative imaginations making up for lack of ability to counter the fact the official 9.11 story was a lie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

Gideon524
Jan 24 2008, 04:47 AM
I'm just following their bad example of paintbrushing as "twoofers" all those who question the 9/11 Commission Report.

I guess 9/11 Family Members, the Jersey Girls and Bob McIlvaine are "twoofers" as well.
I don't particularly like the term 'twoofer', I use 'truther' as I believe that was coined by a member of your movement. Even so the people making these statements are not formally affiliated with the JREF in any manner and it seems somewhat inappropriate to link them. The only time I have seen 'twoofer' used is when describing someone who believes in a specific conspiracy theory regarding 911 and in that case it is appropriate for at least Bob McIlvaine.

Like I said, I don't like the term 'twoofer' but using 'JREFers' etc is simply inaccurate. I understand that using the label 'skeptic' (what I would prefer to be called) may not be a popular option so I would lean towards maybe OCT supporter? It's a tricky choice and I'm sure you can understand I do my best to not offend anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alexvegas
Member Avatar
alex25smash
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 04:51 AM
using 'JREFers' etc is simply inaccurate.
As a word to describe a user of the JREF forum, it is entirely accurate.

Sceptic is a ridiculous choice of term, seeing as most of the members there have already made up their mind and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit. That is not scepticism at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM
and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit
Could you give an example?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
outside

Well that was quite boring to read...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
Can we classify the term "JREF" anathema like "NPT", please?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IVXX
Member Avatar
MDCCLXXVI
Gideon524
Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102124

Notice Mark Roberts was the first in line to applaud it.

co-author - SilentKnight
 
Hey, the first chapter took us several months!


Those silly JFERs are so cute sometimes.

:D
Someone needs to tell Roberts, pot meet kettle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

exponent
Jan 24 2008, 05:37 AM
alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM
and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit
Could you give an example?
haha... as if we haven't spent years pointing out those examples.

don't pretend to be clueless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alexvegas
Member Avatar
alex25smash
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 05:37 AM
alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM
and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit
Could you give an example?
"Pull it meant pull the firefighting operation"

Not a direct quotation but an oft cited point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

pull it not withstanding, we should really focus on why they insist on creating very imaginative theories for WTC 7's collapse when virtually all signs point to controlled demolition. all buildings that have collapsed IN HISTORY, that resemble the collapse of building 7, WERE DEMOLISHED INTENTIONALLY!

Would occam's razor suggest that it is most likely to be a controlled demolition?

Instead, they erroneously apply occam's razor to mean that "since C.D. would mean conspiracy, it is unlikely to be the case."

But they fail to isolate the collapse and analyze it on its own. By virtue of video evidence, we have over a dozen signs of demolition. And really the only thing contradicting that evidence is the pathetic skeptics, and an official government account produced by a department under the president's supervision.

Since the implication of the president and some people within the government would be a foregone conclusion if the visual and physical evidence is considered to be as occam's razor would seem to agree, a demolition, then relying SOLELY on a NIST report is highly illogical and eventually detrimental to one's credibility.

e^n, don't ask us to provide the evidence, since we know you've seen it countless times. just admit that occam's razor is selectively used by you and your mates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dylan avery
Member Avatar

Jesus Christ, these guys need to get laid.

What's the matter, guys? Couldn't do Final Cut? You have to keep targeting the 2nd Edition? I wonder why.
Edited by dylan avery, Jan 24 2008, 10:27 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

well as much as we dislike them, they probably did help you to make final cut stronger than the others... their criticism undoubtedly helped you figure out how to make a more bullet-proof film.

Thanks JREFers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

look-up
Jan 24 2008, 10:39 AM
well as much as we dislike them, they probably did help you to make final cut stronger than the others... their criticism undoubtedly helped you figure out how to make a more bullet-proof film.

Thanks JREFers!
or in their case idiot proof.


< waits patiently for them to create a smarter idiot >
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dylan avery
Member Avatar

Loose Change: Final Cut - Dedicated to the skeptics

Where's your viewer's guide, now, bitches?

:grin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

dylan avery
Jan 24 2008, 10:49 AM
Where's your viewer's guide, now, bitches?

Oh for heaven's sake Dylan come on, just like with NIST's explanation for WTC7... you have to have some patience!!!!

Could the lack of LCFC viewer guide be because there is no plausible explanation other than inside job?

:grin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 09:42 AM
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 05:37 AM
alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM
and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit
Could you give an example?
"Pull it meant pull the firefighting operation"

Not a direct quotation but an oft cited point.
How exactly is this manipulation? That is by far the most parsimonious explanation, can you suggest a more appropriate one?

look-up
 
e^n, don't ask us to provide the evidence, since we know you've seen it countless times. just admit that occam's razor is selectively used by you and your mates.

Lets start by saying that Occam's razor proves nothing and is simply a useful tool in determining which is a more likely theory. Even so you make some very strange claims, for example:

look-up
 
But they fail to isolate the collapse and analyze it on its own. By virtue of video evidence, we have over a dozen signs of demolition. And really the only thing contradicting that evidence is the pathetic skeptics, and an official government account produced by a department under the president's supervision.

It is of course ludicrous to 'isolate the collapse and analyze it on its own', the point of Occam's razor is to make as few assumptions as possible. By isolating the collapse you must make many more assumptions for any case, Occam's razor is inherently not suitable for this.

I find it interesting you claim to have 'over a dozen signs of demolition', because the only people I know to make this claim are ae911truth except they claim less than a dozen and approximately half of them are entirely wrong. Perhaps you could list 'over a dozen'?

dylan avery
 
Loose Change: Final Cut - Dedicated to the skeptics

Where's your viewer's guide, now, bitches?

Well I've pointed out at least two problems I can see so far but I have been lazy / busy. NK-44 has challenged me to support the official story so perhaps we could set up some sort of formalised debate forum here? I would be more than happy to be the proponent of the official story in such a debate providing it was completely fair.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dylan avery
Member Avatar

exponent
Jan 24 2008, 08:49 PM
Well I've pointed out at least two problems I can see so far but I have been lazy / busy.
By all means, you know I'd love to hear them. Can I get a summary?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

dylan avery
Jan 24 2008, 09:40 PM
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 08:49 PM
Well I've pointed out at least two problems I can see so far but I have been lazy / busy.
By all means, you know I'd love to hear them. Can I get a summary?
The claim that the hijackers trained at navy bases is not correctly qualified. The amount of evidence is quite small and in at least one case (You claimed it was confirmed by a general) the account you linked to does not state this at all and no other source I have been able to find does. I don't actually mind the claim being in there (about them training at navy bases) but you should have at least added a caveat that it is considered to be a case of mistaken identity by the official investigators and the only evidence that links them is potentially similar names.

The second problem I have is that your CGI model of WTC7 is entirely wrong. It completely misses out the complex structure at the base and in doing so majorly distorts that section of your film. If WTC7 was indeed constructed in that manner its collapse would be extremely suspicious to me and many other people.

With regards to my other point, would it be feasible to set up a debate forum which is heavily moderated? I figure that we should be required to make a list of each point we have brought forward and the evidence to support it at the end of each post, plus which points we are trying to refute and the evidence to refute them. I think a lot of debates here tend to wander around topics and never really get to the heart of things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
getting to the heart of things.....like the NIST haha
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dylan avery
Member Avatar

exponent
Jan 24 2008, 09:47 PM
dylan avery
Jan 24 2008, 09:40 PM
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 08:49 PM
Well I've pointed out at least two problems I can see so far but I have been lazy / busy.
By all means, you know I'd love to hear them. Can I get a summary?
The claim that the hijackers trained at navy bases is not correctly qualified. The amount of evidence is quite small and in at least one case (You claimed it was confirmed by a general) the account you linked to does not state this at all and no other source I have been able to find does. I don't actually mind the claim being in there (about them training at navy bases) but you should have at least added a caveat that it is considered to be a case of mistaken identity by the official investigators and the only evidence that links them is potentially similar names.

The second problem I have is that your CGI model of WTC7 is entirely wrong. It completely misses out the complex structure at the base and in doing so majorly distorts that section of your film. If WTC7 was indeed constructed in that manner its collapse would be extremely suspicious to me and many other people.


Here's the source on the first one ( i said he was a lieutenant colonel, not a general ):

June 4, 2002: Officer with Possible Unique 9/11 Knowledge Is Reprimanded for Criticizing Bush
Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler is suspended from his post at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and is told he could face a court martial for writing a letter to a local newspaper calling President Bush a “joke” and accusing him of allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen. The military prohibits public criticism of superiors. [BBC, 6/5/2002; Monterey County Herald, 6/5/2002] What is not reported is that he may have had unique knowledge about 9/11: A hijacker named Saeed Alghamdi trained at the Defense Language Institute and Butler was Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs there (note that this is not the same person as the Steven Butler who later testifies before the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry). [Gannett News Service, 9/17/2001] Later in the month the Air Force announces “the matter is resolved” and Butler will not face a court-martial, but it is unknown if he faced a lesser punishment. [Knight Ridder, 6/14/2002]

So, it was not directly confirmed by Lt. Colonel Butler. You have me on that.

And I did point out that the Air Force responded to it all as mistaken identity. And, also, keep in mind, the EXACT wording of the statement is, "a number of hijackers REPORTEDLY trained at US Military Bases."

As for the second one, my graphics house went off of the blueprints located within the FEMA WTC7 report. Granted, they left out the Con Edison substation and the foundation around it. But you must admit the amount, location and proximity of the core columns is accurate, no?

Thanks for the reply.
Edited by dylan avery, Jan 24 2008, 11:12 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

dylan avery
 
And I did point out that the Air Force responded to it all as mistaken identity. And, also, keep in mind, the EXACT wording of the statement is, "a number of hijackers REPORTEDLY trained at US Military Bases."

If you did point out that it was mistaken identity then that is fair enough, I saw LCFC last probably a couple of months ago now and I may not have remembered correctly.

dylan avery
 
As for the second one, my graphics house went off of the blueprints located within the FEMA WTC7 report. Granted, they left out the Con Edison substation and the foundation around it. But you must admit the amount, location and proximity of the core columns is accurate, no?

Above the 7th floor it would appear to be correct, however there were a substantial amount of transfer structure underneath that which is absolutely vital to understanding NISTs preliminary collapse theory. By presenting this incorrect version many first time viewers may believe that NISTs theory is ludicrous when in actuality it's entirely plausible.

The FEMA WTC7 report does include details of the truss structures and braced frame core construction, so I think you should have a good shout at whoever you hired although the presentation was quite good.

Posted Image

I appreciate you responding to my questions, although I would still like an answer to my last question :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dylan avery
Member Avatar

exponent
Jan 25 2008, 12:16 AM
The FEMA WTC7 report does include details of the truss structures and braced frame core construction, so I think you should have a good shout at whoever you hired although the presentation was quite good.

I appreciate you responding to my questions, although I would still like an answer to my last question :)
English is not their first language:
www.electricsheep.de :P

Your question is a decision we need to discuss as admins.
Edited by dylan avery, Jan 25 2008, 12:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply