Monday, October 16, 2006

Trouble in Looser Paradise?

There's been a mass resignation of admins and moderators over at the Loose Change Forum. Needless to say, the Stalinists over there have deleted the thread, but you can see the posts over at the JREF forums.

Essentially, Russell Pickering, a 9-11 Denier who supports the heretical belief that AA 77 hit the Pentagon, was banned by several admins over there. Unfortunately, they were not able to get hold of Dylan Avery, who was too busy commenting on the South Park thread. When Avery found out about Pickering's banning, he apparently got "very, very angry" and reinstated him, while de-modding and de-adminning several of the people responsible. This resulted in the mass resignation.

One of the many problems the 9-11 Deniers face is the lack of a single coherent theory for 9-11; instead you've got the no-planers versus the two planers versus the United 93 was shot down crowd versus the four planers with controlled demolition. For awhile, the differences between the various theories were smoothed over in hopes of attracting more attention to the movement, but now that the attention has arrived, folks are fighting over market share just like Coke and Pepsi.

84 Comments:

At 16 October, 2006 09:07, Blogger SFC B said...

Bollyn is fired, Loosers turn on each other. I can't remember where I'd said it before in regards to the "truth movement" but they're destroying their own right now.

It's entertaining and depressing at the same time, like watching Bum Fights or something.

 
At 16 October, 2006 09:22, Blogger Dog Town said...

Good god it's funny as hell, though.
D'oh boy thinks he's gonna get the forum closed down by Invision.
What a self-important prick!
Wooooo!

 
At 16 October, 2006 09:24, Blogger shawn said...

Liquidate the kulaks.

 
At 16 October, 2006 11:27, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

hehehehehehe Lyte Trip

 
At 16 October, 2006 12:13, Blogger Safe-Keeper said...

Great new turn of events. Let's just close this blog and let the "truthers" kill each others off:D!

It's entertaining and depressing at the same time, like watching Bum Fights or something.

It's better than Bumfights to be honest. Instead of watching poor homeless people being exploited by idiot producers who think they own the world, or at least the streets, we're watching 20-something year old people with a home, education, and enough food to go around pick on each other.

"Truther-Mod Fight"... Sounds like an interesting programme concept.

 
At 16 October, 2006 12:15, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

[hick]
Why I havent seen a gooood fight like dis since dat der woods girl and her flaky friend Reynolds up and left dem der scholars folks.[/hick]

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 12:46, Blogger James B. said...

For awhile, the differences between the various theories were smoothed over in hopes of attracting more attention to the movement, but now that the attention has arrived, folks are fighting over market share just like Coke and Pepsi.

Hmm, new idea for marketing campaign, "Screw Loose Change: the uncola".

 
At 16 October, 2006 13:35, Blogger CHF said...

One of the many problems the 9-11 Deniers face is the lack of a single coherent theory for 9-11;

This is why the movement will never be able to do anything with its "momentum."

Even if every last person in America turned into a CTer, they'd all be too busy fighting eachother to actually string up the guilty ones.

 
At 16 October, 2006 13:50, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, I am not like loosing control.

South Park Loved me. I mean everybody loves me.

 
At 16 October, 2006 13:57, Blogger tym said...

I wonder how long before people start to catch on that maybe Dylan Avery cares a little more about being the rockstar of the "truth movement" than the the actual "truth movement"

The multiple theories are so contradictory that it just makes the whole thing look terrible the more people research it.

Especially since they refuse to acknowledge my own personal theory: That the World Trade Center complex was actually a series of 10 story buildings with holograms on top and once you go inside, they'd gas you with a high powered hallucinogen to make you think it was real, all the tv recordings of explosions and collapse were faked and that the debris was planted and nobody actually died because there was a switch with time travellers made like in that Kris Kristofferson movie "Millenium"

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:23, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

mark chapman used to sign his cheques as john lennon then he shot him.

mark chapman was mentally ill.

there is a poster here called avery dylan.

ill say no more

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:29, Blogger Richard said...

You really are dense.

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:34, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

richard how am i dense. just making the point that people who go round calling themselves the people they envy are generally paranoid schizophrenics

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:36, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

84% of american people dont believe the official fairy tale, what u gonna do go round to 200 million houses with this crap

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:46, Blogger Safe-Keeper said...

84% of american people dont believe the official fairy tale

Argument ad populumm, true or untrue.

There once was a time when 100% of people believed the Earth was flat. There was a time when 84% of the people believed insects came out of rotting flesh.

what u gonna do go round to 200 million houses with this crap

You have no idea of what you're talking about. Maybe if you actually read the "crap" with an open mind, you'd see it disproved every single "argument" the truthers have?

richard how am i dense.

You kinda have to be to believe Loose Change.

just making the point that people who go round calling themselves the people they envy are generally paranoid schizophrenics

Prove (there's that OS word again:p) that he's envious. That'd be a nice challenge for you, I'm sure.

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:54, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

i dont believe loose change its an awful film

insects do come out of rotting flesh

experts believed the earth was flat, bit like ur experts that believ fire pulverises concrete

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:56, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

prove he isnt envious, its not normal to go round giving urself the name of people whos movie u dont like

 
At 16 October, 2006 15:59, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

i cant stand dylan avery or his film but i use my own name because im not deranged.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:27, Blogger Alex said...

insects do come out of rotting flesh

You really are an idiot.

experts believed the earth was flat, bit like ur experts that believ fire pulverises concrete,

EVERYONE believed it was flat you idiot. "Experts" at the time were religious leaders whose main argument was "the earth is flat because we say so". Then Galileo, one of the first true scientists, came around and proved them wrong. And they nearly had him executed for it. Much like the twoof movement keeps insinuating that all the scientists who are "in on it" will be "hung from the street-poles when the revolution comes". Nothing's change, we still have a bunch of ignorant idiots wanting to kill those who dare defy their "truth" by using facts and scientific analysis. The only difference is that you no longer have the power to harm us.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:33, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

NYT/CBS Poll. Showed that since May of 2002, The % of people who believe BUSH is telling the full truth about 9/11 has gone down from 21% to 16%.

So from his peak popularity, to his lowest, he has only dropped 5% for the question of telling the full truth about 9/11.

The same poll also showed that the % of people who believe he is "hiding something" has actually dropped, from 65% in May 2002 (when he was incredibly popular) to 53% today (when he is very unpopular).

Now, unlike some who cherry pick the polls, I will also tell you, that this poll, which is the same one where the "84%" figure comes from, also showed that the number of people who feel is "Mostly Lying" has gone up from 8% in 2002 to 28% now. The 84% is calculated by adding the 28% to the 53% and adding in the unsure, which stands at "3%". So who is doing the lieing and the cherry picking now.

Don't believe me, here is the link to the actual poll results.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

TAM:)

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:36, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

ur rite we have lots of idiots, like bill o'reilly who wants kevin barret to be investigated by the FBI for having an opinion.

Your analogy is a good one. 911 truthers are like the people who thought the earth was round, and like those people we will be vindicated

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:37, Blogger acmefoilco said...

This is from the Judy Wood Thread:

pdoherty76 said...
as i have said i am not an anonymous troll, im paul doherty who graduated frm manchester with an MMath(hons) degree in June 2000. feel free to check, or even ring Dr Peter Eccles my tutor.

Owned

12:10 PM

Well children, I've done some basic research, and went to
http://www.maths.man.ac.uk/~peter/#students(no sure how to link) and discovered PD's prof's list of students with post grad degrees (which includes Masters level) and here's the Complete list. Guess whom it does't include?

BINGO!

Graduate students past and present:
Sadoon M Al-Musawe, Multiplications on certain H-spaces, MSc 1974
Salih Karadag, Intersection points of immersed manifolds, MSc 1980
Khalid Felali, Intersection points of immersed manifolds, PhD 1982
William P R Mitchell, An application of and the derivation of a certain splitting, MSc 1984
William P R Mitchell, p-fold intersection points and their relation with MU(n), PhD 1986
Richard J Morris, Immersions of manifolds, MSc 1988
Adam J Harrison, Self-intersection points of immersed manifolds, MSc 1990
Paul R Turner, A filtration of the homotopy groups of spheres, MSc 1991
Paul R Turner, On the homology of certain infinite loop spaces, PhD 1993
Mohammad A Asadi-Golmankhaneh, Self-intersection manifolds of immersions, PhD 1998
Christopher I Hazell, Immersions up to bordism, PhD 1998
Jonathan M A Burgess, On self-intersections and the stable homotopy of D_2MO(2), PhD 2002
Mark Grant, Bordism of immersions, PhD 2006

Hadi Zare, PhD student, 2005-
Azzah Al-Shehry, PhD student, 2006-


Also I cut and pasted the University's list of Post Grad Degrees that are available, below. Note how thy are MSc? ... And how did PD put it?

MMath(hons) degree


Mathematics
Applied Numerical Computing MSc
Mathematical Logic and the Theory of Computation MSc
Pure Mathematics MSc
Statistics MSc
Theoretical & Applied Fluid Dynamics MSc

This weasle can't even get his degree spelling right!

Doherty- You are a lying sack of shit, Sir.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:38, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

alex check my blog, ur centre stage in it lad

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:41, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

I have an MMath(Hons) degree

Maybe it has changed since I graduated SEVEN years ago

but yet again I thank you for proving why I call u lot anal. Your researching me. Would you like my address so you can stalk me?

:-)

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:42, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

my degree wasnt post grad. it was 4 years inclusive. Feel free to speak to Dr Peter Eccles and ask him

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:45, Blogger Triterope said...

Would you like my address so you can stalk me?

Feel free to speak to Dr Peter Eccles and ask him

No further comment necessary.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:46, Blogger acmefoilco said...

You said you graduated in 2000,

pdoherty76 said...
I have an MMath(Hons) degree

Maybe it has changed since I graduated SEVEN years ago

but yet again I thank you for proving why I call u lot anal. Your researching me. Would you like my address so you can stalk me?


Lemme check the math on that one, Okay. 2006 minus "seven years" equals one MSc who can't do math!

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:49, Blogger acmefoilco said...

Masters is ALWAYS post-grad, even in the UK you dipshit!

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:50, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

well its 6 and a half years, but anyway acmefoilco ur totally wrong, I got that degree at that university under the tutorship of Dr Peter Eccles

Face it punk, u have made a mug of yourself

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:52, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

no it isnt acme boy

there are degrees where at the end of ur second year you can choose BSc or MMath. If you choose MMath you do two more years of more specialised areas and you must undertake a project in ur final year, a thesis of sorts

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:54, Blogger acmefoilco said...

pdoherty76 said...
I have an MMath(Hons) degree

Maybe it has changed since I graduated SEVEN years ago

but yet again I thank you for proving why I call u lot anal. Your researching me. Would you like my address so you can stalk me?


Sadoon M Al-Musawe, Multiplications on certain H-spaces, MSc 1974

They've been listing the Degree types the same way for at least 30 years!

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:55, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

acmeboy you are clearly jealous of me because you have no degree. indeed u have no friends either judging by the way u obsessively research me

ur research skills are typical of debunkers, u get all the conclusions wrong

ur name should be acne u spotty little geek

why dont u change your name to mine, then u can pretend to be me and eventually start stalking me like mark chapman did to lennon

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:57, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

In my final year I did a course entitled "Asymptotics of integrals and matched expansions"

.....Waits for my stalker to go check if the course exists

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:58, Blogger acmefoilco said...

You just keep changing your story.
Grow up! Move out of Mum's basement! Get a life. You've been outed man. Give it a rest.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:59, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

im like a god to these people.

Keep checking the blog folks, u know u cant resist

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:06, Blogger Alex said...

Right, for anyone that's not yet convinced he's a liar, I'll post the e-mail once the prof gets back to me. Personally I haven't bought a word he's said since yesterday, when he claimed to be a graduate of some math/physics amalgamation of courses while displaying the grammar and spelling of a 12 year old. So, other than posting that e-mail, I'm done with this clown. I'd suggest everyone follow suit. Pat and James are too fair to ban his ass, but the rest of us certainly don't need to acknowledge him. Don't feed the troll!

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:08, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

alex the email u will recieve will confirm what i have said, then u wont post it

besides even if i were lying about my degree it wouldnt change the fact that i have handed all your asses to u in a bag

I got my email from JREF, ive been accepted so soon ill be handing u ur asses over there

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:10, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

alex answer me this question, if i was gonna lie why would i pick a degree that wasnt the usual MSc? and if i was lying why would i give u the name ofa real professor?

I cant wait till he confirms it.

u better post the email in its entireity

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Cant wait to see what you have to say over there.

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:12, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

alex explain how i lied in the blog post i just wrote.

i gave u aname and u did ur little research thing. no lies involved

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:12, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

macrophage what is ur name in jref?

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:12, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I am sure he will. And I would like it posted over at JREF once PD starts posting there.

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:13, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

It is the same...please do not PM me unless it is something benign in nature.

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:13, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

T.A.M.

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:14, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

macrophage ur a learned man, whats ur opinion of these idiots researching me?

Debunkers are stalkers it seems

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:15, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

well Mr T.A.M. i will make an effort to avoid you in jref since u implored these cretins to ignore me. If im worthy of being ignored make sure u ignore me in jref because i sure wont be answering u lad

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:16, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

so macrophage do u have to have a degree to get in JREF?

I guarantee he wont post that email because it will confirm precisely what i have said and young alex wont like that

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:21, Blogger acmefoilco said...

A partial Mea Culpa.

But an MMath is the equivalent of a BS here. So I think that PD is still full of BS.
Undergraduate Programmes of Study
Programmes for students entering in 2006
Single Honours - BSc (3 years) & MMath (4 years)
Mathematics
Mathematics and Statistics
Mathematics with Applications
Mathematics with Financial Mathematics
Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:22, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

by the way alex why shoul pat and james ban my ass? is it a crime to come here and have an opinion. Ive tried debating issues but all u people want to do is research me and prove i dont have adegree, which i agree is an irrelevant degree to this anyway#

maybe they should ban u clowns

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:24, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

see acme? u have discovered im not lying about MMath

i never claimed it was post grad

it is a masters tho hence the letter M


I have a certificate on my wall which describes me as master of mathematics

as for the physics aspect, my courseload was mainly mathematical physics e.g. thermodynamics, electromagnetism, waves, boundary flows etc

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:27, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I made those comments of ignoring you, yesterday, when you were being obnoxious. It is only since I have seen a little, a little, reasonable behaviour from you once again that I even commented directly to you. And I didnt say I would be addressing you over there. I will likely watch your posts, see how reaosnable, or unreasonable you are with respect to your comments, etc.. and then post. It is you right to ignore me, as it was my right to do the same.

No, you do not need a degree, of course not.

I know, hoever, that alex will post it, if he finds it.

and no, I doubt pat and jim would. Unlike many of the CT sites, they allow polarized views. Take a look at some of the nonsense NESYNC has posted here as proof.

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:30, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

seems it is somantics:

Your masters in math, is the North American equivelant to a BSc in math with a more focused work load, in particular on Physics it seems.

A Masters here is Post Grad, however, hence the confusion.

Were you required to write any sort of thesis?

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:30, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

oh and heres a bit of additional information if ur interested and oh boy are u interested my little disciples.

My project was on the history of euler, a great peice of work I thought but the bastards gave me 60% for it

im waiting for u to jump on the 60% and claim it makes a bad student and therefore unable to have an opinion on 911

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:31, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

See why do you have to get like that. One minute you seem to have moments of rational, intellectual discourse, the next you are name calling.

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:33, Blogger acmefoilco said...

Good for you, but you didnt bother to explain MMath Degrees when dueling w/Telescope, then implying that your four year degree was superior to his. You are just plain disingenuous.

In the States here, You're still just a B.S.!)

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:33, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

i did a small thesis on euler like i said, by the way my degree is not the equivalent of BSc. I did a years extra work and indeed the last 2 years work was far more involved than anything in a normal degree. I was at university for 4 years.

To give you an idea, the course I meantioned earlier "asymptotics of integrals and mathed expansions" was a 3 month course solely on the approximations of flows over an aerofoil and it was taught by the leading rocket scientist of russia in the 1970's

dont bother researching his name but it was anatoly ruban

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:36, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

erm im not in the states and i dont intend to be so I will remain a master of mathematics like my degree certificate says

by the way acme, are u going to apologise for calling me a "lying sack of shit"

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:48, Blogger acmefoilco said...

disingenuous:
1.withholding or not taking account of known information

2.withholding or not taking account of known information.

In other words ......NO.
Ya deserved it my boy.

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:51, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

disingenuous isnt lying and besides i wasnt disingenuous

u claimed i had no degree u calaimed no MMath degree existed then u called me a lying sack of shit

I havent told a single lie(not knowingly anyway)

My degree is real and its exactly how i described it, its a masters

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:54, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

anyway my degree has no relevance here, i only mentioned it in response to some dickhead who claimed i was a kid who knew nothing about physics

it does make me a bit more qualified to spot the disinfo u lot put out regarding scientific issues but it doesnt make me a structural engineer and i never claimed it did

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:58, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I have never doubted your qualifications, have I?

Despite you doubting mine. And then I infact went to the admin at JREF and had her prove it to you (see post in thread I made for you there).

As for your 4 years of University, that is the same length of time it takes to get a standard BSc. Now I have no doubt your MMath was more intense in the final years, I am merely commenting that the time in Uni are the same for both.

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 17:58, Blogger Jacob said...

You wrote a paper on Euler to get you degree. Book report style?

I'll play the debate game with you. Pick a topic relating to engineering with respect to 9/11.

None of this topology crap. I don't care about manifolds or knots or whatever you mathematicians make up in your free time. ;)

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:02, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

not in britain, its a 3 year course for a BSc here

maybe our a-levels that we take before university are a higher standard, i dont know or indeed care

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:03, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

jacob why would i debate engineering when i am not an engineer? i may as well debate biology

wats ur point about euler? he was a good mathematician, he woulda been a truther

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:04, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

jacob its funny, u would like me to debate on a topic i dont profess to know about and then you refuse to debate on topology which i do and u dont

thats debunkers logic for u lol

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:07, Blogger Jacob said...

I have a minor in mathematics and I'm in medical school... we can talk about mathematics, biology, or engineering. I just felt that we should talk about engineering since it seems the most relevant in understanding 9/11 conspiracies.

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:12, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

i dont have any conspiracy theories about 911

i am unable to debate engineering so what would be the point?

engineering isnt the only thing one can use to analyse the world trade centre, newtonian mechanics is quite handy as is mettalurgy and materials science, common sense is quite a good tool aswell

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:17, Blogger Jacob said...

Wow, sounds exactly like my degree.

Structure and Properties of Materials, Rigid Body Mechanics, Dynamics, Solid Mechanics, Fluid Mechanics, Themodynamics, Design of Thermal Fluid Systems... those all fall under the broad umbrella of engineering.

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:18, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

oh so i am an engineer?

i didnt realise

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:23, Blogger Jacob said...

I don't know, do you feel you are qualified?

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:26, Blogger pdoherty76 said...

jacob ive seen the jref forums, it is just people calling other people unqualified and thick

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:26, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

well when I am unqualified to talk on a topic, and if it is to complex to simply use common sense, I usually quote a reliable source from an expert in the field.

TAM

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:32, Blogger Jacob said...

well when I am unqualified to talk on a topic, and if it is to complex to simply use common sense, I usually quote a reliable source from an expert in the field.

Same here. I don't know why I'm trying to start a debate with this guy, I think its because I don't want to study the Pentose Phosphate Pathway. *sigh*

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:49, Blogger Jacob said...

I'll wait a little longer. :) Since you are here TAM, what field of medicine are you in?

 
At 16 October, 2006 18:51, Blogger Jacob said...

James and Pat, I apologize for using spamming your comments section, I just got a little wired up.

 
At 16 October, 2006 20:11, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"anyway my degree has no relevance here, i only mentioned it in response to some dickhead who claimed i was a kid who knew nothing about physics"

I think you were referring to Alex when you mention "dickhead", but I'm going to take up the cranial mantle: You are a kid who knows little about physics. You're statements are proof of that.

You say "momentum is not conserved in the model nist uses, end of". Does that mean this paper is incorrect (Link)? Or Debunking911's blog post here? If you subscribe to the conservation of momentum fallacy, are you taking into account the transfer of momentum from the falling floors to the ones below? The only defense of the fallacy of conservation of momentum I've ever seen worked out didn't take any of these factors into account. Have you?

Or are you just parroting what you've found on other sites?

"judy woods tree model is correct in that concrete doesnt pulverise just like trees dont unless something pulverises them"

Judy Wood's "model" was that a tree doesn't turn itself into sawdust from the top down, and that it doesn't collapse from cutting a "big chunk out of the side" (Link). Those are assertions, not arguments. Just like your assertion. Wood is not concrete, and simply cutting a section out of a tree, ignoring the structural differences between a tree and a skyscraper, does not properly model the impact of a large jet moving at the speed it was, nor does it model the effect of the fire within.

And as far as pulverization: If that was truly the case, why did enough large structural components fall on the roofs of the adjacent buildings, including WTC 7, that those buildings themselves collapsed? The assertion that the WTC's "pulverized" is unsupported; elements of the structure did indeed pulverize, causing the debris cloud, but did the whole top portions do so?

You still haven't explained the pyroclastic flows applicability to the WTC collapse. Also, regarding your critique of Alex's calculations in the previous thread:

"your equation for potential energy is totally wrong, ur simple centre of mass version assumes uniform density of material which is not true.

for example the central columns (which debunkers deny the existance of) get lighter toward the top and the television antenna has huge potential energy. not to mention the special sky lobby floors that were reinforced"
"

And why didn't you explain how that changes the potential energy in the building? Yes, I know that if the center of gravity is not in the same place and the distribution of mass is not the same, the potential energy calculation changes due to that translocation of mass. My point here is that your argument was weak, even if I understood it, because you merely asserted, you did not attempt to construct an argument. Assertions are not arguments.

Also, even given the fact that the building is lighter towards the top, is it so much lighter that it cannot account for the collapse as observed? Your critique is that Alex's model makes incorrect assumptions, but even if he does, does it disprove his assertion that there's enough potential energy in the structure to account for the collapse? If so, how does it disprove it? And, if so, where's the flaw in Dr. Greening's calculations (PDF link above)? Because he basically comes to the same conclusion.

For all your "expertise", you're not doing a good job of defending your position. In fact, all you're doing is parroting what you've found on the net; you're not even analyzing what you find, or trying to explain exactly how what you've found disproves our arguments. Plus, whenever confronted with facts, you either rest on your credentials, or you attempt to deflect the argument.

Argue. Use facts. Build to logical conclusions. You're not doing a good job, and you're far from providing evidence that our views are incorrect. You're correct in saying your degree has nothing to do with whatever truth there is in your arguments, but your arguments contain no truths. So you're left with nothing. Is that what you really want to accomplish here?

 
At 16 October, 2006 20:30, Blogger Safe-Keeper said...

prove he isnt envious

Burden of proof, friend. Cornerstone of democracy. You need to prove he is envious, not the other way around.

ur experts that believ fire pulverises concrete

I never heard a single one say so. It's a strawman created for the sake of argument by you guys.

911 truthers are like the people who thought the earth was round, and like those people we will be vindicated

...

but yet again I thank you for proving why I call u lot anal. Your researching me.

No shit?!

I could bring up how ole Dylan not only "researches" private people, but also call them murderers to their face, without you being bothered for a second about it, but I'll get it go. Instead I'll just say that--

--Yup, he's researching you. Probably because you challenged him to: "Feel free to speak to Dr Peter Eccles and ask him". Now, when you say someone should "feel free to" do something, it might just result in them actually doing it. 'Nother reason psychology pwnz physics any day; they teach you things like this so you don't wind up accidentally giving people permission to do this and that.

acmeboy you are clearly jealous of me because you have no degree.

How convenient for you that everyone who disgrees with you are envious of you for some reason! Whoo-pe-hooo!

indeed u have no friends either judging by the way u obsessively research me

Do you always flame people so severely when they actually do what you permit/challenge them to do, or is it only when they prove you wrong?

Debunkers are stalkers it seems

Are you really generalizing every single person here based on one guy, or are you merely trying to get an insult thrown your way?

anyway my degree has no relevance here

[Counts the number of posts he's spent insisting he has a degree and insulting everyone who thinks otherwise].

Right.

 
At 17 October, 2006 09:38, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Jacob:

Sorry, i was gone by the time you posted. I am in Family Medicine. You know, jack of all trades, master of none.

Krebs Cycle, very unimportant in the grand scheme of your career, but very important to passing your biochem final...lol

TAM

 
At 17 October, 2006 12:06, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Well it sounds like old Pdo just made you folks eat some crow! Great job Pdo.

 
At 17 October, 2006 14:11, Blogger Triterope said...

Well it sounds like old Pdo just made you folks eat some crow! Great job Pdo.

Only in the bizarro world you inhabit.

But hey, if you want to be impressed by a guy whose idea of a comeback is "i will accept the tag of douchebag as i often visit vaginas unlike u ya virgin lol", then be my guest.

 
At 17 October, 2006 22:49, Blogger Bubbers said...

"what u gonna do go round to 200 million houses with this crap"

Actually pdoherty, we only need to go to 50 million houses with it. Only 25% of people in America are retarded guy. Or was it 46%? Damnit I don't know who to believe. Well, anyway, it's only 92 million houses at most.

 
At 17 October, 2006 23:08, Blogger Bubbers said...

"acmeboy you are clearly jealous of me because you have no degree."


Who gives a shit about a degree? When it comes to this shit, a college degree does not matter, either way. When it comes to this kind of stuff, the best intellectual weapon would be IQ scores(problem solving, critical thinking gauge). On average CTists absolutely have to have significantly lower IQ scores than the people who think they are retards. That would be an interesting study.

 
At 18 October, 2006 07:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Only in the bizarro world you inhabit.

But hey, if you want to be impressed by a guy whose idea of a comeback is "i will accept the tag of douchebag as i often visit vaginas unlike u ya virgin lol", then be my guest.

That is great job of pulling out one selective comment to support the meaningless bizarro world comment. Point is instead of trying to discredit the scholar, you should try to discredit his arguement.

 
At 18 October, 2006 13:00, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

What arguments? He makes assertions, refuses to cite sources, tries to call accusations "opinions", then cries about people asking him to back his argument up and starts insulting them. Then cries when people call him names back.

He also takes issues out of contexts, stretches the credulity limit of his argument, commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and doesn't even try to buttress whatever points he posts.

Triterope's pull quote isn't one taken completely out of context and completely different from everything else Paul's doing. It describes exactly what he's doing. It's totally representative. That's how Paul chooses to engage people there. And you think this somehow vindicates his misconstruences and outright denial of truths? He hasn't successfully argued a single point! He hasn't proven a single point! Heck, on my last count last night, he only provided one link with one issue he raised, and it was the portal page, not the specific page inside that his assertion dealt with!

As another posted pointed out:

"Ain't about winning or losing, it's about presenting facts and learning things."

Link

To which he responded:

"stella could u please prove to me that it isnt about winning or losing?

where is ur evidence?

What sources do you have to show that it isnt about winning and losing?"


In trying to make a snarky point about how people kept on asking him for evidence - one of his complaints about the people challenging him - he ends up revealing that he's not providing evidence, nor is he interested in being anything but coarsely argumentative. He's not interested in debate whatsoever.

That's making people eat crow? What, you don't think we can't go over and look for ourselves?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home