9/11 — The Myth & the Reality

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Mark must be making a new graph. Ho-hum.

Hey, maybe people are out doing something, instead of hanging around at internet sites. Like going to conferences, and marches (which you don't see on your teevee, either, but they are happening all the time).

So, bring on the new graph, Gravy, showing the decline of the movement. While I watch it grow.

[T.A.M.]

So are you saying that all journalists who work for MSM are not credible, or fear for their jobs too much to investigate this stuff?

TAM:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

skepticalcriticalguy, those terms are not exclusive. We can have an official story and a solved crime, but still keep investigating. Much like gravity has been a well understood fact of life ever since Newton, but some of the best minds in physics are still working furiously upon it.

If you don't believe me, perhaps you'd like to list just how the "official story" has changed, and see if there's anything particularly radical there, or if it's merely the standard and expected practice of refinement. Proceed.

When dealing with a crime cabal handling the investigations, there is a thin line between "refinement" and "cover-up."

I'd post Holmgren's "Debunking Conspiracy Theories" paper from 2002 (I think), but last time I did everybody here just laughed and laughed. Yet, it brings up a valid point; the story changed with the wind in those early months and years. And it smelled of coverup, not refinement.

[R.Mackey]

I asked you to explain how it did these things, not simply claim that it did in more colorful terms.

Now do so, please.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So are you saying that all journalists who work for MSM are not credible, or fear for their jobs too much to investigate this stuff?

TAM:)

Well, since I'm a whack-job CT, I think a large percentage of them are compromised, involved with Intel, or working a side. So, never mind.

We call it the oil-soaked spy-riddled monopoly press.

[Pardalis]

We call it the oil-soaked spy-riddled monopoly press.

Woah! :eek:

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I asked you to explain how it did these things, not simply claim that it did in more colorful terms.

Now do so, please.

Nah, I have a movie cued up. Gotta go live. Maybe tomorrow. Or read Holmgren's paper.

See, you're laying a trap; I can't write a book right now for you; but if I name one aspect, you'll spin it, and then say "what else." It's all well written about. Maybe you guys should read some of the Twoofer books!

[R.Mackey]

The "trap" I laid was to see if you could back up your own statements. Clearly the answer is no.

If you spent more time telling the truth, and less time "avoiding traps" that only your paranoia sees, you might find more reception here. Enjoy your movie, since it's clearly more important to you.

[Pardalis]

Dylan Avery is not the main man. That's all I'm saying.

Of course he's not, he's a boy.

[beachnut]

If you all weren't worried about the growing movement, you wouldn't spend all your time on here, TAM.

You guys are isolated. You choose to make the LC forum and a couple other sites your focus. The movement is growing. Trust me.

Darn you are so challenged in research. You did not do very well on this topic did you? You left out Dr Jones. You left out Fetzer! You left out Hoffman. You left out PFT, the JDX pilot guy. You missed Bowman. You left out the high school drop out Charlie Sheen. You missed so many people besides LC. Judy Woods. Morgan Reynolds. The list goes on and on.

How did you miss this?

As for the movement growing. I have to agree as you shake some trees the real nuts are starting to fall for your money train. You have Griffin selling books, Webster Tarpley selling books, LC selling DVDs, want to be JDX trying to sell DVDs, yes the amouth of idiots buying lies grows. But you have all the nuts on your side.

The 99.99 percent of all US engineers who are not with you number in the millions, as do other people who can think for themselves and able to check the lies of the not so truthful truth movement.

No you missed that too. The movement is full of nuts and they are self destructing as we speak.

It is hard to have a big tent with a missile, a drone, a global hawk, a beam weapon, no planes, no terrorist, no idea what happen, no idea who did it, and no facts or evidene to present. Did you find any facts yet.

Oh no here come the hoards of real dumb guys running open loop stupid, they could run for president. But alas they all are cowards when it comes to trying to open a book and getting and education. Yes Virginia, there really are some real dumb guys.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The "trap" I laid was to see if you could back up your own statements. Clearly the answer is no.

If you spent more time telling the truth, and less time "avoiding traps" that only your paranoia sees, you might find more reception here. Enjoy your movie, since it's clearly more important to you.

Right now, yes, it is more important to me. Do you have a life you live outside of the smarter-than-thou debunking world?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The 99.99 percent of all US engineers who are not with you number in the millions, as do other people who can think for themselves and able to check the lies of the not so truthful truth movement.



Excuse me? 99.99 percent of US engineers have weighed in on this?

Your posts are getting worse. Are you capable of posting anything without listing Wood, Jones, Fetzer, etc? It only sjows that you aren't even up on the movement. Those are the only names you know?

[Redtail]

Excuse me? 99.99 percent of US engineers have weighed in on this?

Your posts are getting worse. Are you capable of posting anything without listing Wood, Jones, Fetzer, etc? It only sjows that you aren't even up on the movement. Those are the only names you know?

Ooo who are the other engineers? I realize that they must be legion so haow about 3 and what they are engineers of?

[Pardalis]

Scepticalcriticalguy, please allow me to extend my deepest gratitude. I trully want to thank you for making me feel so much better about myself. It is such a relief to realize how sane I am after reading your posts.

:)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Scepticalcriticalguy, please allow me to extend my deepest gratitude. I trully want to thank you for making me feel so much better about myself. It is such a relief to realize how sane I am after reading your posts.

:)

Glad I could help. However, don't be so sure you're sane.

[R.Mackey]

Right now, yes, it is more important to me. Do you have a life you live outside of the smarter-than-thou debunking world?
I sure do.

Since I generally tell the truth, I don't have to spend so much time going back and forth... thus, I get my debunking time in, and my life outside as well.

Anytime you want to answer my question, go right ahead, sweetheart.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I sure do.

Since I generally tell the truth, I don't have to spend so much time going back and forth... thus, I get my debunking time in, and my life outside as well.

Anytime you want to answer my question, go right ahead, sweetheart.

I slung you a link. That should suffice for now.

[R.Mackey]

I slung you a link. That should suffice for now.

No dice. Your "link" is over four years old, and appears to be written by a lunatic.

If this is the quality of all of your answers, perhaps you had best surrender now, and go watch your movies. Dazed and Confused, by any chance?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

No dice. Your "link" is over four years old, and appears to be written by a lunatic.



Typical "debunk".

[skepticalcriticalguy]

If this is the quality of all of your answers, perhaps you had best surrender now, and go watch your movies. Dazed and Confused, by any chance?

Very clever, sweetheart.

[R.Mackey]

Let me make this clear to you, before I put you on ignore:

You claim the "Official Story" changed numerous times, and was still doing so.
I challenged you to explain how it changed.
You hem and haw, and then finally produce a link, with no comments.
The link in question is not current, is in fact over four years old, and thus cannot possibly reflect the current state of the "Official Story"
The text of the link doesn't indicate changes in the "Official Story" at all, but instead considers only mystifications by its author. I particularly like his attempt at understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- a classic.
Therefore, you have not answered my question.

If you want to stand by Holmgren, pick out a list of what you think he got right. Show where the "Official Story" changed. Make a list.

Or shut up. Choice is yours.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Let me make this clear to you, before I put you on ignore:

You claim the "Official Story" changed numerous times, and was still doing so.
I challenged you to explain how it changed.
You hem and haw, and then finally produce a link, with no comments.
The link in question is not current, is in fact over four years old, and thus cannot possibly reflect the current state of the "Official Story"
The text of the link doesn't indicate changes in the "Official Story" at all, but instead considers only mystifications by its author. I particularly like his attempt at understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- a classic.
Therefore, you have not answered my question.
If you want to stand by Holmgren, pick out a list of what you think he got right. Show where the "Official Story" changed. Make a list.

Or shut up. Choice is yours.

Well well, you did at least glance at it.

I'm not taking your bait. So put me on ignore. All you guys do is lay traps. If I pick one of the hundreds of inconsistencies in the official myth, 80 people will sling links at me, and spin the "data" and "facts" to bolster the story. And then declare victory. And then insult me. So why bother? We all know the story has been like clay. "Refined?" Interesting word.

[R.Mackey]

I'm not taking your bait. So put me on ignore. All you guys do is lay traps. If I pick one of the hundreds of inconsistencies in the official myth, 80 people will sling links at me, and spin the "data" and "facts" to bolster the story. And then declare victory. And then insult me. So why bother? We all know the story has been like clay. "Refined?" Interesting word.

You still haven't supported the bolded bit above. That's precisely what I'm asking you to do.

The process you outline above, "bait," "traps," ""data" and "facts"", and "declare victory," only seems pejorative to you because you have no facts, no evidence, no logical extrapolation, and no way to defend yourself. Such an interpretation in no way invalidates our conclusions.

Welcome to ChristopheraVille. Enjoy your stay.

[Gravy]

I notice your cute graph skips Rense, Prison Planet and Infowars. And several others.

You live under a rock, I swear. You have such a hardon for Dylan Avery that you actually think most people in the movement go to his site. I think I've been there maybe 3 times.
So you're trying to disprove my point about the frequency of visits to these sites by stating how infrequently you visit them.

Thank you.

Here is my "cute graph" again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f26164bb79f.jpg

What do the listed sites have in common, SCG?

No peeking until you've really tried to figure it out.

They are major sites entirely devoted to 9/11 conspiracies! No UFOs, no moon landing hoaxes, no Federal Reserve bashing, no Black Popes. Just 9/11.
Shocking, isn't it? Now please answer this question: does this graph indicate increasing or decreasing viewership of the listed sites?

Give up?

Decreasing.
And if you want to see the same graph posted for Rense, Jones, and friends, those graphs have been posted on this subforum in the past two days! And guess what they show? Exactly the same trend!

How about that!

There are sites you don't even know about. Because you're too narrowly focused.Since I don't know about these sites, they must be quite popular, eh? They must really be spreading like wildfire among the U.S. populace, most of which spends far more time on these issues than I do, huh?

Okay, name them.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

So you're trying to disprove my point about the frequency of visits to these sites by stating how infrequently you visit them.

Thank you.

Here is my "cute graph" again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f26164bb79f.jpg

What do the listed sites have in common, SCG?

No peeking until you've really tried to figure it out.

They are major sites entirely devoted to 9/11 conspiracies! No UFOs, no moon landing hoaxes, no Federal Reserve bashing, no Black Popes. Just 9/11.
Shocking, isn't it? Now please answer this question: does this graph indicate increasing or decreasing viewership of the listed sites?

Give up?

Decreasing.
And if you want to see the same graph posted for Rense, Jones, and friends, those graphs have been posted on this subforum in the past two days! And guess what they show? Exactly the same trend!

How about that!

So, before you accuse someone of hiding under a rock, you should learn what that expression means. Misusing is must be embarassing.

Since I don't know about these sites, they must be quite popular, huh?

I saw the other graph when it was posted. Just wondered why you would leave those out. OK, you explained.

So, the movement is dead? Cool; now you can stop wasting your life on stupid CTers! You guys won! It's over. Congratulations.

Keep watching your graphs. As I mentioned, I think it will be an interesting election. And I'm not referring to Truth candidates.

[Gravy]

Keep watching your graphs. As I mentioned, I think it will be an interesting election. And I'm not referring to Truth candidates.Most elections are interesting. Why are you directing these comments to me?

[ref]

Thank you.

Here is my "cute graph" again.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f26164bb79f.jpg



How is that daily reach interpreted? If the daily reach indicates a figure of 0,08, what is the big figure that this point is 0,08 from? Can it be converted to some daily total number of visitors?

[ref]

I asked, because the trend is clearly decreasing. And it would be interesting to know, how many people actually visit their site anymore.

[kookbreaker]

So, the movement is dead? Cool; now you can stop wasting your life on stupid CTers! You guys won! It's over. Congratulations.

Wow. Not only have you demonstrated a disgusting level of rank cowardice in this thread, but you also are determined to prove that you are the biggest crybaby as well.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I notice your cute graph skips Rense, Prison Planet and Infowars.
Two-out-of-three more: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2427775&postcount=352

Notice, again... the decrease...

There are sites you don't even know about. Because you're too narrowly focused.
If even "we" don't know about them, they can't be all that popular, can they?

Face it. People are losing interest in your brand of "truth". You're slowly fading into obscurity.

[ref]

Thank. That linked Chipmunk-post had an explanation of the percentage question I had.

[ref]

So now I get to the part I waited for.

In March, about 0,002% of global internet users have visited Loose Change website.

0,002% is 1/50000. Out of every 50 000 global internet users, 1 single person has visited Loose Change website in any random day of March.

There are around 1,114,274,426 internet users in the World.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Not even remotely close to that number of people use the internet on any given day. I don't know if there are any estimations or calculations indicating how many global internet users there are on an average day.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Most elections are interesting. Why are you directing these comments to me?

Because you are pointing out to me that the movement is dying. The elction cycle will prove otherwise.

[beachnut]

Excuse me? 99.99 percent of US engineers have weighed in on this?

Your posts are getting worse. Are you capable of posting anything without listing Wood, Jones, Fetzer, etc? It only sjows that you aren't even up on the movement. Those are the only names you know?Oh, give me the new experts, the new list of nuts. Come on the big list. McKinney the nut case from Congress who lost. Next? What new names do you have who have some facts?

ZERO new people with facts on 9/11. As I thought. Just talk like Griffin and Tarpley, and anyone one else you could name. Give me the list of new fact filled truthers waiting to break this case to kingdumb come!

Go ask an engineer you know. Oops, not many engineer talk to you do they? Okay, how many physics teachers are behind you? Where is that list? I thought you would have a list. Are you too lazy to provide one?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Because you are pointing out to me that the movement is dying. The elction cycle will prove otherwise.
Isn't that you people said about this past mid-term election?

[OMGturt1es]

UPDATE:

i probably won't be around on saturday.

:(

thanks for the links to the transcripts. i appreciate the help and encouragement. if i'm lucky, i'll still attend, but it's looking as if that won't happen.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Isn't that you people said about this past mid-term election?

And your point? Did you think David Ray Griffin was going to win a Senate seat as a write-in?

That nut Bowman had a pretty good showing, no?

[chipmunk stew]

And your point? Did you think David Ray Griffin was going to win a Senate seat as a write-in?

That nut Bowman had a pretty good showing, no?
Bowman did about as well as anyone expected him to do. He ran as the lone Democrat and most Democratic voters vote for the Democrat.

He did not run as the 9/11 Truth candidate.

edit: If Florida's 15th District had been competitive, the Democrats would have found a competitive candidate who would have beaten Bowman handily in the primary. Since it wasn't competitive, they all but ignored the district and let it fall to whomever was willing to collect the signatures to get themselves on the ballot.