The 9/11 Forum

Kat Dorman from an exchange in the truthaction.org forum from near the bottom of this page:

The fact is that those who DO have legitimate criticisms of NIST and the substance to petition for correction and/or additional study are greatly hindered by jackasses like you. Not you individually, you are of no consequence. It's the din from all the jackasses braying together which is the problem.

Some care about a new investigation, and I have respect for their concerns, even though I have my doubts about the veracity of any new official investigation. I believe the truth is best served by individual researchers taking responsibility for what they can. I'm pessimistic and that's an opinion I'm entitled to - just as you don't care to put your eggs in the basket of anonymous internet researchers. My pessimism, however, does not translate into disparaging legitimate efforts to obtain new investigations.

I disparage the pathetic and counterproductive attempts to get a new investigation by people like you. Every time you prattle on about some issue which needs no further explanation or doesn't even exist, you do your part to ensure there will be no further official investigation.

Yup. Many do their parts to mix true information with false information so completely that careful intellectual inquiry is drowned out in an ocean of dumb.

I do not distinguish between truther and debunker bullshit. It comes in different shapes but ultimately has the same color, smell and texture.

(Both polarities are strikingly similar)

Major_Tom wrote:Kat Dorman from an exchange in the truthaction.org forum from near the bottom of this page:

Smart smartie, that one.

I do not distinguish between truther and debunker bullshit. It comes in different shapes but ultimately has the same color, smell and texture.

One of the great truths which so few know.

In an effort to describe what I see as the relationship of science to subjective viewpoints through simple stories, I introduce a couple of parables.....


Parable of the Wolf, Goat and Cabbage


As a puzzle it is a variation of the fox, goose and bag of beans puzzle. From the link:

In the earliest known occurrence of this problem, in the medieval manuscript Propositiones ad Acuendos Juvenes, the three objects are a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage.
...
The puzzle has been found in the folklore of African-Americans, Cameroon, the Cape Verde Islands, Denmark, Ethiopia, Ghana, Italy, Russia, Romania, Scotland, the Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The story goes like this:

A man has a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage. He must cross a river with the two animals and the cabbage. There is a small rowing-boat, in which he can take only one thing with him at a time. If, however, the wolf and the goat are left alone, the wolf will eat the goat. If the goat and the cabbage are left alone, the goat will eat the cabbage.

The Question: How can the man get across the river with the two animals and the cabbage?

from this link


Within the links this is viewed as an old puzzle, but the symbols of wolf, goat and cabbage together and the relations between them can also be understood as a type of parable.

In this sense the wolf represents the unchecked selfish instincts of a person. The goat represents the emotional passions and the cabbage represents their intellectual capacity to reason.


The parable also applies to a communal or national level. The wolf now represents the short term selfish instincts of the most powerful members of the community, the goat is the community's more passionate beliefs and emotional judgements, while the cabbage represents their ability to reason impartially about themselves and the world around them.


The basic relations here are (1) greed and self-preservation, (2) emotional passions and (3) the ability to reason clearly beyond self-interest.

One should immediately see how weak and vulnerable that poor cabbage is within the group.


Parable of the wolf, goat and cabbage applied to the WTC attacks and collapses



In the case of careful observation of the WTC collapses, the cabbage can be thought of as the application of impartial scientific standards within an open and observant intellectual culture that actively checks facts and verifies claims.

The goat can be thought of as gut feelings, prejudisms, taboos, physics shot from the hip while sitting in an armchair, laziness, false certainty...

The wolf is instinctive self-opportunism which is the mindset of domination by any means necessary. (Me on top, you on bottom, love it or get off the planet).


Consider the relationship between goat and cabbage in light of a comment by Einstein on gut feeling and "common sense":

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

One would think that careful and comprehensive observations and measurements required within scientific approaches to problem-solving are intended to counter common mistakes made by relying on gut feeling and opinion. One would think that the whole idea of careful observation is because it is better to rely on ones direct observations than soley on ones gut. The gut was never intended to replace the eyes.

But in the relation between goat and cabbage, the poor, highly vulnerable cabbage is in serious need of protection. If one is not astute and very careful, that cabbage is a goner. If the boatman is careless for only a moment there is no way that cabbage will be able to fight off a hungry goat.


And as for the wolf? It is not mentioned in the story, but we know a hungry wolf can kill a boatman.....then eat the goat.........then eat the boatman, leaving the cabbage to the crows (to peck and peck and peck). Once again, the cabbage alone cannot fend off the crows and gets the worse of the bargain.

Parable of the Road to Truth Covered in Dung



Looking for the truth concerning the events of 9/11 can be likened to walking down a pathway which herds of inconsiderate bovine covered in piles of dung.




In order to learn about the events, one is forced to find a way to step through and over this seemingly endless supply of cow paddies. There were and are so many paddies covering the road to 9/11 truth that it becomes hard to even see the road.


Where do all these cow pies come from?

I suspect that many posters in this forum would agree that gross ignorance of the possibilities of a massive chain of progressive floor collapse in WTC1 and 2 has been a central contributing factor to the field of cow paddies we need to manuveur around regularly. I also suspect that most will agree, if they stop to think about it, that this larger environment of misunderstanding was created by a complete absence of the recognition of the strong possibility of a massive chain of progressive floor collapses within the Twin Towers in any government, professional or academic literature.

What factors are responsible for such a massive level confusion about the collapse modes? What conditions led to a surge in block mechanics from multiple sources as late as 2007 to 2011? What factors are most responsible for the chaotic, anti-intellectual environment in which many of the readers have been posting over the last few years?

A quick reminder of the main thesis in my "book":

One of the two central arguments of this book is that there is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses. This is verifiably true beyond doubt. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature.

The lack of of information available of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers left open an atmosphere in which absurdly impractical discussions flourished. It still does.

The posting record of this forum from the first posts in July, 2008, serve as an excellent example of the informational void the original posters were facing at the time. The forum would still be in the same informational void today if individual researchers didn't struggle their way out of it. Likewise, the threads OOS Model and the branch thread in the JREF forum linked earlier are excellent demonstrations of the extremely confused atmosphere in which many JREF posters (mis)understood both Bazant and collapse progression as late as 2010-2011. It is painfully obvious that people on all "sides" were working with very little information, including no clear information on the collapse progression modes. The absence of useful information on the subject during this period allowed this type of thinking to dominate forums virtually unchecked.

In the specific case of the collapse progression modes of WTC1 and 2, the direct effects of this "information blackout" are visible everywhere one looks even more than 1 decade after the collapses.

This does raise the question why the notion of a progressive floor collapse is not in professional literature?

I can only assume that it is really a floor failure model... excessive loading which would repeat when floors of similar design are stacked... as in a typical high rise structure.

The typical engineer would approach the problem by designing the floor to support anticipated loads with the acceptable deflection... such as 1/720 (stiff). If the actual load is exceeded the floor with deflect more than 1/720 (span distance / deflection ratio). The floor will not fail, but it will deflect more than the design spec. The deflection will increase as more load is applied. At some point the beam or floor system will fail and collapse.

Floor collapse requires substantial excessive load. Under normal circumstances excessive load conditions do not present. One example might be to use a typical office use floor... designed for 100 psf for storing heavy steel safes. We've all seen postings about maximum safe loads for bridges or elevator cabs. Floors limits are no posted because loading is often driven by use designations. Offices uses do not include storing safes.

However, it's almost glaringly self evident that if you stack up similar structural systems... such as floors.. if the upper most one fails from excessive loading it's failure presents the same load PLUS to the floor it falls up. The load is applied dynamically AND includes the weight of the floor itself. If the floor above failed from excessive loading... the identical ones it falls upon will likewise fail.

So why would a discussion of something so self evident even find its way into the engineering literature? or discussion? No reason to.

So what happened when the twins collapsed? Why did the discussion go so dumb? We can only guess.

1. Armchair researchers look for technical literature about progressive floor collapses in high rises. There is virtually none. This leads to be wrong conclusion that if no one has written about the phenomena it is not one that is possible! Progressive floor collapse ruled out.

2. The conditions to present to cause progressive floor collapse are so rare... because of safety factors, deflection but no failure, and sensible loading in real world conditions. Occupants become aware that the floor is being overloaded before it fails because it noticeably sags... and remove the excessive weight.

3. The general public conceptualized structural strength to be found in the strength of columns. When a structure is CD's (quick demolition)... it is the columns that are *taken out*... and the building drops without support. How could a set of columns which supported the load of the building become too weak to support it when no additional loads are applied? Ergo some destroyed the columns... and the building falls.

I believe most engineers and physicists understand why a multistory identical floor structure can collapse progressively when loads on one floor go too far over spec. And I believe the general public has absolutely no grasp of some of the most basic principles of structure and physics. The gap in understanding is so vast that one group (engineers and scientists) doesn't bother to talk (down) to the other and the other (general public) hasn't the tools to speak to the other group.'

Failure is a very general term. A failed structure could look like all the parts piled up on the ground... like the house of cards.. or the fallen dominos. In the destruction of the twin towers failure also included the destruction of materials and contents not SIMPLY diss-assembly of them. Why didn't it look more like fallen dominos and houses of cards... or structures blown over and fallen by wind for example... or from earth quakes?

Here is where there was a failure account for the observations... all the steel lying about like the dominos or the cards... But... what happened to the floors themselves... and the contents.. why did they turn to dust? Dominos don't dustify nor do falling houses of cards or villas in CA from earthquakes. What kicks in is a type of logic which is absent some of the technical inputs which describe mechanisms of destruction to inform understanding.

And then up pops artifacts of the collapse... such as enormous heat. Where did that come from? Why so much? In steps the flawed logic... exotic exothermic reactions - incendiaries used to destroy the columns which caused the building to collapse! NAILED.

Smart idiots is a very appropriate title for the phenomena. You have intelligent people using some observations (even reasonably accurate ones) and logic and a bit of science and constructing a consistent mental model of what happened. But of course not having all the technical background to inform the model and the precise data from the observations.. they produce cartoon like explanations... circling back to pick the "evidence" which supports their model.

This is religious type thinking... not scientific. That's the problem... But it's too bad that some technically trained people think like religious leaders... calling Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Dr Griffin...

A poem written by W. H. Auden near the beginning of WW II.......

September 1, 1939

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

Accurate scholarship can
Unearth the whole offence
From Luther until now
That has driven a culture mad,
Find what occurred at Linz,
What huge imago made
A psychopathic god:
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

Exiled Thucydides knew
All that a speech can say
About Democracy,
And what dictators do,
The elderly rubbish they talk
To an apathetic grave;
Analysed all in his book,
The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.

Into this neutral air
Where blind skyscrapers use
Their full height to proclaim
The strength of Collective Man,
Each language pours its vain
Competitive excuse:
But who can live for long
In an euphoric dream;
Out of the mirror they stare,
Imperialism's face
And the international wrong.

Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

The windiest militant trash
Important Persons shout
Is not so crude as our wish:
What mad Nijinsky wrote
About Diaghilev
Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

From the conservative dark
Into the ethical life
The dense commuters come,
Repeating their morning vow;
"I will be true to the wife,
I'll concentrate more on my work,"
And helpless governors wake
To resume their compulsory game:
Who can release them now,
Who can reach the deaf,
Who can speak for the dumb?

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Defenceless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.

....................

Interesting to note the perceptions expressed within this poem are from a time when the massive explosive energy releases from sustained nuclear chain reactions were only the stuff of science fiction.

Some interesting comments by Sander that I'll return to, but first I want to include some written notes related to the "book".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL MAPPINGS



Physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anatomy are some of the most fundamental external mappings ever created by human beings.

What about internal mappings? Since everything is ultimately perceived not through the senses but through ones "mind" and understanding of a perception is therefore limited as "mind" is limited, internal mappings of the nature, states and mechanisms of "mind" seem at least as important as external mappings, if not more.

Within the western sciences the nature, states and mechanisms of "mind" are studied in the fields of psychology, sociology and philosophy. They are also central to all the arts and humanities.





Researchers at the frontiers of any science can be thought of as "map makers". They are doing nothing more than mapping structure, quantitative and qualitative features and mechanisms. They are mapping form and pattern. The applied part of science and engineering is in the manipulation of the structures and mechanisms inherent in nature for specific uses.




The state of imbalance as expressed by Einstein: "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

Physical scientists tend to become engrossed in external mappings while remaining highly ignorant of internal mappings. This ignorance, or imbalance, is encouraged within our advanced cultures. Many of these people are paid quite well for their work in exploring, mapping and manipulating physical processes.


It is as if our societies have gained a great capacity to manipulate physical processes through a knowledge of their structure, qualities and mechanisms, while at the same time remaining highly vulnerable to psychological manipulation. One can say that the external mappings are quite advanced while the internal mappings remain quite primitive, hence a gaping and dangerous imbalance is noticable to those who are not so transfixed on the illusion of this lop-sided "progress".




PAVLOV'S EXPERIMENTS FROM THE DOG'S POINT OF VIEW

Take the example of one of Pavlov's dogs. In his world, he wants all the food samples he can get. The dog in the experiment is hardly interested in the relationship between external stimulus and his own tendency to salivate. The dog certainly isn't interested in the results of the experiments conducted on it. It is focused in the tasty treats.


Turning ones attention from the dog to the scientist....


Produce research, get biscuit. Produce research, get biscuit.

Neither the dog nor the researcher seem to care that their internal mechanisms are being manipulated. What does that have to do with getting more tasty biscuits?

PHYSICAL MAPPINGS, PSYCHOLOGICAL MAPPINGS AND THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01



Part 2 of the "book" introduces contradiction, part 3 introduces accurate composite mappings of all 3 collapses. They are the most accurate composite mapping of visible features of the 3 collapsed buildings available anywhere.


Interestingly, reactions to the information in parts 1, 2 and 3 provide a context by which one can see how this information "bounces off" the minds of posters, individually and in groups. For example, part 2 introduces contradiction. The reactions witnessed in response to part 2 give a pretty good indication as to how the contradictions presented in part 2 are received by others within the environment of different groups.

How are these contradictions received within a JREF environment, within a Pilots for 911 truth environment? How are they received by individual investigative reporters? How are they received by the NIST?


Just as part 3 introduces accurate physical mappings of all 3 collapses, so the psychological reactions to the information in part 2 can provide a loose set of psychological mappings of various readers, individually or in groups.


Therefore, the underlying purpose, or value, of this short, concise "book" is not only to provide accurate physical mappings of the collapsing buildings, but also to provide an interesting context through which to see patterns within the psychology of various groups, institutions and of society as a whole.

The events of 9/11/01 give an astute reader a truly unique opportunity to catch glimpses of how ones most hallowed institutions really work behind the scenes. It gives a unique opportunity to "read in between the lines". It demonstrates how truly gullible people can be all the while they strongly argue that no such vulnerabilities exist within them.

False certainty is a type of gullibility in which there is no awareness of the tendency toward gullibility.

Auden, via poetry and direct observation, captures an incongruity within the very limited, squirrel-like focus of social institutions:

The Unknown Citizen
by W. H. Auden

(To JS/07 M 378
This Marble Monument
Is Erected by the State)

He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a
saint,
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was popular with his mates and liked a drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured,
And his Health-card shows he was once in hospital but left it cured.
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Instalment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace, he was for peace: when there was war, he went.
He was married and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his
generation.
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their
education.
Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.



Yes, we certainly would have heard.



Rather than view government institutions as surrogate father figures, why not see them as highly vulnerable, limited, breakable organizations, the results of which should be scrutinized by independent sources before embracing their conclusions as objective truth?

In reality, what can be seen throughout the "book" are highly vulnerable institutions and individuals. A collective record of vulnerability and confusion can also be seen through posting histories in forums and message boards. In part 5, the extreme confusion is collectively recorded within major media even a full decade after the collapses.

All this is observable. It is all recorded.

FILLING THE VOID


It is instructive to observe how various people come to firm, fixed decisions within an information void.

How is the information vacuum received and perceived by various observers? Is it perceived as contradictions or is it not perceived at all?

How does belief in either Dr Ding or Dr Dong change how one perceives (doesn't perceive) the information vacuum?

How do different people fill the void, consciously or unconsciously?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


THE RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION VOID BY A FEW INDEPENDENT RESEARCHERS

Every individual researcher who has chosen the path of accuracy has found that they have to work within a massive information void with very little help.

They have found that if they want accuracy, they basically have to do much of the work themselves.

For example, in my case, I found that if I want a good library of images effectively mapping the debris layouts around the WTC complex, I would have to assemble it myself.

If I wanted a record of the condition of core columns within the rubble I needed to make one myself.

In order to address the question of core column buckling and column-to-column break patterns I needed to use the catalogs of information I assembled and figure the visible patterns out by myself.


I also found that in order to gain a decent, comprehensive idea of the collapse progression modes of WTC1 and WTC2 I would have to visually reconstruct the collapse processes myself and look for clues directly.

....................

I think a few other researchers experienced the same thing that I did. If they wanted accurate mappings of the collapse fronts and overpressurizations witnessed below the collapse fronts, they had to construct them by themselves. If they wanted accurate measurements of building movements, they needed to take those measurements themselves.


During the critical moments of collapse initiation, if any person wanted an accurate record of early movement they would have to create that record themselves. If they wanted an accurate description of overpressurizations witnessed they would have to log that record themselves.



The irony is that without efforts by independent researchers to log events directly from the visual record, these gaping mistakes and omissions would have never been spotted. And once spotted they are simply ignored.

On the value of independent research:

No matter where your current opinions stand, there would be no firm basis for having them without independent research. This is easy to understand by imagining ones situation if there was no independent research for the last 5 years and one had access only to the literature available from government, academic or professional sources.

It is not difficult to look back and realize that anyone interested in finding out what happened to the towers would find themselves back in an information vacuum.

From this perspective, the information void has been identified for what it is by some independent researchers and has been filled with collapse records based first and foremost on accuracy.

This thread is an interesting study in both application of physics and the ability to process it objectively. I haven't read it all; recommend starting at the beginning and then skipping forward to where Metatron links, after striking through his "bullshit" comment. After his aha experience. Remains interesting through the discussion of the "Monty Hall problem" and beyond.

Edit: on second thought, read (or skim) it all. Watch the combination of misapplied physics and fear of woo ensnare many a skeptic. Smart idiots, indeed.

Edit2: Here is a JREF thread on the same subject, some of the same players, from three years earlier. I particularly like the comment on the third page from Thabiguy: "This should be a lesson to all skeptics, including myself: never be so full of yourself to think that you cannot be dead wrong about something."

Edit3: Wow. It's absolutely heartwarming to see (some of the same) debunkers attack solid physical principles as being woo with the same rabidity and certainty as they attack conspiracy theorists. Kinda gives the impression that they never know what the hell they're talking about, are just sometimes accidentally right. Poster spork, someone I already like a great deal, says "Normally I'd assume you're joking, but after 3 days on this forum I'm not going to make such assumptions."

Wow. Reading the first link. Fascinating.

I must admit I'm not getting it quite yet.

And that's key: the blowhards at JREF would be psychologically incapable of admitting such a thing: it would put a dent in their coveted façade of omniscience and perceived infallibility.

>>> I don't know <<<

>>> I'm willing to learn <<<

Still reading. Amazing.

OneWhiteEye wrote:This thread is an interesting study in both application of physics and the ability to process it objectively. I haven't read it all......

"Rationalskepticism" is the forum that was created by dispossessed refugees from the Richard Dawkins forum when that forum was shut down in 2010. The Dawkins forum was my home from 2007-2010 with about two years moderating "Politics and Current Affairs" which included a single thread on "Was WTC collapse on 9/11 a CD?" (or words to that effect.) So no conspiracy sub-forum, certainly no 9/11 sub-forum, and a lot of work in one thread which eventually went to (IIRC) 8 parts at about a thousand posts each - then the move to ratskep when Dawkins pulled the plug in 2010. The 9/11 thread is still limping along - much like JREF 9/11 currently - nothing of substance being discussed and most activity being little more than trolling and counter trolling responses. I haven't been to ratskep for months as one former regular poster over there, "Kat Dorman", could be aware. I have done very little posting recently for several reasons.

Now I recall this topic of faster than airspeed craft and cannot guarantee what my response was at the time. I do recall my initial reaction "that doesn't look true but let's see if it is!" then I had to put brain in gear to address the basic physics - mostly being related to the identification and mechanics of free bodies. I think I got it right in the end but cannot remember what I posted or whether it was on Dawkins or Ratskep.

It is certainly a lesson in keeping skepticism open and not locking up in arrogance.

And an order of conceptual thinking more testing than anything I can recall associated with 9/11 WTC collapses.

Ha. At JREF, only tsig was left holding the bag at the end of the thread. You know that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

OneWhiteEye wrote:Ha. At JREF, only tsig was left holding the bag at the end of the thread. You know that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I would expect that the Dawkins forum membership would be as good as you could expect for dealing with issues of that level of challenge in the Internet forum medium. Some of that intellect and expertise transferred to ratskep but not all - and it would be biased towards evolutionary biology - I was probably the best on Dawkins on 9/11 WTC collapse and the relevant civil and military engineering. Few other engineers there other than one viciously dishonest troll plus psikeyhackr who you know. I did not take part in the none-9/11 discussions after the move Dawkins Forum>>>>ratskep... I think it was the start of my losing interest in forum style discussions.

At the risk of raising the temperature here I don't think the range of intellect here is significantly different to JREF. Look at a couple of recent antagonistic posters who would already have been sanctioned on JREF or on ratskep (for personal insults) or on Dawkins if it was still operational and I was moderating.

The big difference is that JREF has a lot of followers on the "debunker" side - very many - probably most of the active members - plus a few trolls on the truther side. None of them add substantive content to discussion. So their net contribution is essentially "noise". I ignore noise. Currently there are no genuine truthers I can see other than (possibly) Christopher7 (Sams?) and Tony SZ both of whom are probably genuine supporters of truther oriented objectives but whose current activity on JREF is only trolling, clever trolling. Trolling with a bit of technical input to make it look genuine "on topic" but discussed in a "go nowhere except round in circles" fashion with no intention of progressing discussion to reasoned outcomes.

My practice of standing firmly on objective middle ground annoys some. At least one occasion it was tsig. I admonished beachnut a couple of times when he used one of my posts as a launch pad for one of his standard diatribes with zero reference to my post which he quoted. I have commended femr2 and Major_Tom's work where I agree with them - and not commented on areas of disagreement other than in attempted and failed discussions with MT.

So, bottom line, I am not as vigorously anti JREF as seems the norm here. That does not mean I am blind to weaknesses and biases. And, apart from lacking a mass of "follower - Me too" types, I'm not sure that the range of activity here is reflective of a significant difference in level of applied intellect. Sure the leaning is towards the truther side but femr2 and MT's work if not others are strictly neutral objective AFAICS.