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.
posted by Pat @ 7:47 AM
38 comments
38 Comments:
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.
Liquidate the kulaks.
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.
[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
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".
Like hey man, I am not like loosing control.
South Park Loved me. I mean everybody loves me.
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"
You really are dense.
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.
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.
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:)
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.
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!
Cant wait to see what you have to say over there.
I am sure he will. And I would like it posted over at JREF once PD starts posting there.
It is the same...please do not PM me unless it is something benign in nature.
T.A.M.
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
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
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
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
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. ;)
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.
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.
I don't know, do you feel you are qualified?
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
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*
I'll wait a little longer. :) Since you are here TAM, what field of medicine are you in?
James and Pat, I apologize for using spamming your comments section, I just got a little wired up.
"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?
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.
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
Well it sounds like old Pdo just made you folks eat some crow! Great job Pdo.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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
<< Home