Right now, JREF is celebrating the failure of NYCCAN. They say it had legal holes and they are happy such "crap" wasn't put before voters. There's also a MAD magazine cover with Obama holding a "NYCCANT" sign. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5215486&postcount=886

This suggests that they would have otherwise allowed/welcomed NYCCAN if it was better formatted? (yeah right) To openly celebrate the failure of democratic choice eludes to something being hidden. And being pro-Obama now makes you a 911Truther? And in the poster there is a slash mark straight through the American flag where it says "I voted". So being against NYCCAN means you're anti-democratic and anti-patriotic, you think the flag sucks, and being unable to vote should be championed.

And just how do they suggest finishing the sentence "NYC can't..." Can't what? ..vote? ..get justice? .. know the truth? ..be democratic? In my opinion, the slogan NYCCANT would be better suited for 911truthers, and should be emblazoned across NYC. It directly tells the people that their ability to make their own choices and decide how their city is run has been silenced. It says that democracy has been stopped. Use it.

If only for the sake of tragic comedy, then this BBC article is worth a look.

When Sceptics Fight Back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8291688.stm

It touches upon such enlightening (and confusing) concepts as:

-Skeptics (from JREF) being skeptical of other skeptics (i.e. all conspiracy theorists)
-That conspiracy theorists are guilty of re-writing history
-Skeptical JREF lambastes the "mainstream media" for their "bad reporting" which (somehow?) supports conspiracy theories.
-A journalist who, after stating he was Jewish, eventually finds support in the skeptically anti-religious JREF community.

(Of note: on the JREF web site, there were zero search results for "Sibel Edmonds", and only a single result on BBC, which was a minor 2004 sub-reference to something else reported in a British newspaper. Good to see how CTs are successfully re-writing MSM history!)

They sure tell some whoppers over there, and most of them are pretty transparent, but boy does this one take the cake.

In response to an OP's legitimate points which indicate controlled demolition, Mackey says the following:

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

Hmm. Really?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

This kind of modus operandi is nothing new for OCT defenders.

Mark Roberts, Apologist for EPA Lies

"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." - Mark Roberts, leading "debunker"

In my opinion there are two main types of debunker. There are 'Shills' who are paid government propaganda assets tasked to talk down the 9/11 Movement for Truth and there are 'Saps' who are their hangers-on. These are often poor lost souls who suffer from moral cowardice and are only too willing to swallow whole the poor fare offered by the Shills. These are by far the biggest group of debunkers.

In the immortal words of Mike Rivero;-

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

From: Baltimore Grassroots Media

On Monday, July 20, 2009, BGM followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.
-SNIP-
The final stop was the White House where Gage, with Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed thuther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.

See The BMG Article for the video.

EDIT- corrected typos and my mistake about Farmer (thanks Tanabear- see comments), added more details incl. a number of quotes from the paper, and made hyperlinks- visit 911Reports for the links)

JREF, Paint, Kaolin, Bentham and Media Coverage of the ‘Active Thermitic Material’ Paper by Erik Larson
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2009/04/12/jref-bentham-and-media-coverage-of-the-‘active-thermitic-material’-paper-by-erik-larson/

The paper “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published April 3, 2009 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (Bentham.org)

It is currently the subject of much debate (mostly attacks) at JREF, beginning with this thread, now closed- it has gotten 1831 comments and 30,413 views as of this posting:

[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe- JREF
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

Dave Weigel of Reason Magazine published an article called Free Paulistine on September 3rd. A part of the article contains the following quote:

Here were the reporters, finally covering the Paul movement. Here’s what they were covering: Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, a vision in a yellow T-shirt and blue blazer, aired 9/11 conspiracy theories while reporters rushed to get comments from attendees. (I walked past a New York Times reporter who was quizzing two Paul backers about controlled demolitions.)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106135

_______
Hi, Folks.

This will be my last post in this subforum. I'll be posting in other subfora and will be getting involved in other skeptical pursuits, but will still be available for 9/11 questions, interviews, debates, etc. if need be, so don't hesitate to let me know if I can help.
...

Thanks for putting up with my aggressive style for all this time. I know it doesn't make for pleasant reading, but it's been important to me not to use kid gloves on these revelers in ignorance and these apologists for the terrorists who killed my neighbors.

_______

Here is Dylan Avery's response to that last statement:

"What a load of empty rhetoric. The Jersey Girls lost their HUSBANDS, and they're the principle driving force behind the existence of the Truth Movement. Stop playing the victim, Mark. Everybody lost their neighbors and their loved ones, and a majority of those family members are demanding answers just as much as we are. Just because you have an axe to grind doesn't grant you the right to play crusader and use the victims' pain and suffering as leverage, calling the Truth Movement 'apologists'"

Hi all,

I checked out JREF for the first time in awhile today, and finally their own Ryan Mackey has offered an answer to David Ray Griffin's latest book - at least the NIST chapter. It's an MS Word document totaling 198 pages.

I've read the first several pages where he gives a general overview. I don't have the time or energy to get into it in depth tonight (or for that matter this whole weekend). I would like to read it all, but perhaps some of you can beat me to it. I am open to all sides of an argument and this would indeed be the first lengthy critique to any aspect of Griffin's book. That being said, much of what I've read so far isn't impressive; he basically says, (in a long-winded way designed to fill up space), that "YOU are claiming controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on YOU, not on NIST."

Anyone out there want to help me out? I'm interested in what people think are the paper's strong points and flaws. I think it's important that Truthers and Debunkers put their strongest stuff out in the open to be examined objectively.

Over on Jref Dr Frank Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular.

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.

This is my open invitation for public debate regarding the Flight Data Recorder of American Flight 77 provided by
The National Transportation Safety Board (www.ntsb.gov).

I challenge the following:

- Anti-Sophist (anonymous persona on JREF),
- Mark Roberts (a person who feels we do not need to question our govt regarding 9/11 and does anything in his power to 'neutralize' 9/11 arguments including harrassment at Ground Zero)
- William Seger (internet persona of Democratic Underground who loves to cherry pick)
- The NTSB
- The FBI
- Anyone who thinks analyzing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon is a "Honey Pot" or a "Trap"
- Any mainstream media outlet who wishes to tackle the subject of American 77 Flight Data Recorder as provided by the NTSB.

All of the above i have challenged to a debate in the past, using real names, in a real forum (not the internet),
to email me with their number to set up the debate and/or recorded call.
None have stepped up to the plate.