| 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! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| JREF says WE have too much free time on our hands?; JREF presents: MST3K, LC2 Edition | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM (1,028 Views) | |
| Nevermind | Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM Post #1 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102124 Notice Mark Roberts was the first in line to applaud it.
Those silly JFERs are so cute sometimes.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:39 AM Post #2 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Nevermind | Jan 24 2008, 04:47 AM Post #3 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jan 24 2008, 04:49 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 04:51 AM Post #5 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| alexvegas | Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM Post #6 |
|
alex25smash
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 05:37 AM Post #7 |
|
Could you give an example? |
![]() |
|
| outside | Jan 24 2008, 06:50 AM Post #8 |
|
Well that was quite boring to read... |
![]() |
|
| Q | Jan 24 2008, 07:15 AM Post #9 |
|
A Higher Evolution
|
Can we classify the term "JREF" anathema like "NPT", please? |
![]() |
|
| IVXX | Jan 24 2008, 08:04 AM Post #10 |
![]()
MDCCLXXVI
|
Someone needs to tell Roberts, pot meet kettle. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 24 2008, 09:33 AM Post #11 |
|
haha... as if we haven't spent years pointing out those examples. don't pretend to be clueless. |
![]() |
|
| alexvegas | Jan 24 2008, 09:42 AM Post #12 |
|
alex25smash
|
"Pull it meant pull the firefighting operation" Not a direct quotation but an oft cited point. |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 24 2008, 10:01 AM Post #13 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 24 2008, 10:26 AM Post #14 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 24 2008, 10:39 AM Post #15 |
|
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! |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Jan 24 2008, 10:45 AM Post #16 |
![]()
|
or in their case idiot proof. < waits patiently for them to create a smarter idiot > |
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 24 2008, 10:49 AM Post #17 |
![]()
|
Loose Change: Final Cut - Dedicated to the skeptics Where's your viewer's guide, now, bitches?
|
![]() |
|
| Lin Kuei | Jan 24 2008, 11:21 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 08:49 PM Post #19 |
|
How exactly is this manipulation? That is by far the most parsimonious explanation, can you suggest a more appropriate one?
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:
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'?
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. |
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 24 2008, 09:40 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
By all means, you know I'd love to hear them. Can I get a summary? |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 24 2008, 09:47 PM Post #21 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Andoo Inc. | Jan 24 2008, 10:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Sir finds a lot
|
getting to the heart of things.....like the NIST haha |
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 24 2008, 11:10 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 25 2008, 12:16 AM Post #24 |
|
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.
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. ![]() I appreciate you responding to my questions, although I would still like an answer to my last question
|
![]() |
|
| dylan avery | Jan 25 2008, 12:28 AM Post #25 |
![]()
|
English is not their first language: www.electricsheep.de Your question is a decision we need to discuss as admins. Edited by dylan avery, Jan 25 2008, 12:28 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












9:09 AM Jul 11