It's Over!

bonavada · 5th June 2008, 03:16 PM

Seems the game is up. Twoof is a doomed concept. Expect your redundancy cheque from NWO control soon. A backpat for everybody. I could do with a holiday. I hear Barbados is lovely this time of year.

LINK

Originally Posted by eSkeptic online magazine

Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise.

BV

theauthor · 5th June 2008, 03:27 PM

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

jhunter1163 · 5th June 2008, 03:38 PM

Debunkers assume that Truther claims are false because the overwhelming majority of them are demonstrably false. When the evidence pro and con is presented in context and objectively evaluated, no Truther theory has yet been shown to be true.

Reheat · 5th June 2008, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

Source?

theauthor · 5th June 2008, 03:40 PM

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

theauthor · 5th June 2008, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Reheat

Source?

Source for what?

beachnut · 5th June 2008, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Source for what?

9/11 truth has no sources! Cool, you live up to what is expected! Zero evidence. Got evidence? Not if you are 9/11 truth, and you have failed to post one piece ever. Perfect record of pure hearsay.

technoextreme · 5th June 2008, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

There is a difference between believing something that may have some basis in reality and believing in something that is so absurdly stupid you shouldn't have to use much time to think about the topic.

bonavada · 5th June 2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

Who cares what your interpretation of anything is. Your time is up. You are a twoofer, tWOOf ist kaput, end of story g'night.

BV

~enigma~ · 5th June 2008, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.

If you got that out of an article written in eskeptic...you really have some majorly skewed perspective. Now an open mind is fine but not as open as your truther friends because their minds are so open their brains fell out a few years ago.

Jonnyclueless · 5th June 2008, 03:53 PM

So let's get this right. The 9/11 woo movement makes up a term to call people who point out their lack of sources and their fabrication of facts or complete lack of them. So they then use that definition to claim it then proves that people under that term don't use any scientific process or investigate. And then that claim itself is based on absolutely nothing.

Ah, stupidity rears it's ugly head...

Drudgewire · 5th June 2008, 03:57 PM

Is this ignored buffoon really claiming that Randi would prefer to explore the same oft-trodded out and demonstrably false claims every single time a new yutz makes them rather than mock the 15,000th idiot who peddles the same lie either out of ignorance or out of willful fraud?

Has he ever even read a Randi commentary?

Civility, civility. Thank you.

Posted By:LibraryLady

Horatius · 5th June 2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not.

Evidence?

fullflavormenthol · 5th June 2008, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Is this ignored buffoon really claiming that Randi would prefer to explore the same oft-trodded out and demonstrably false claims every single time a new yutz makes them rather than mock the 15,000th idiot who peddles the same lie either out of ignorance or out of willful fraud?

Has he ever even read a Randi commentary?

No. I mean honestly he has proven himself a troll who will make any statement just to pick a fight. His favorite seems to be stating that skeptics are not really skeptic if they are not troofers. He also likes to pretend that the world is laughing at the "debunkers" and not the troofers.

Dog Town · 5th June 2008, 04:08 PM

So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft...

Quote:

-A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious.

-As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproving a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker

Horatius · 5th June 2008, 04:10 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...35#post2036135

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2043341

The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs.

dudalb · 5th June 2008, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...35#post2036135

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2043341

The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs.

Seems pretty anti CT to me.

Drudgewire · 5th June 2008, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Evidence?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67015&page=5

Quote:

You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I…

I do not discuss conspiracy theories.

James Randi.

bonavada · 5th June 2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft...

Judging by another definition below (at this LINK) and with all respect to Mr Randi, I have no problem being labelled with the tag. I notice too that theauthor has no real response to the thrust of the OP. What's new?

BV

Quote:

de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks
To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug

Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.

Drudgewire · 5th June 2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Civility, civility. Thank you.

Posted By:LibraryLady

Very sorry, days of pent-up snottiness all came out at once.

stevenwarran · 5th June 2008, 05:29 PM

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!

Magenta · 5th June 2008, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by stevenwarran

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!

Uh, weren't you banned?

Loss Leader · 5th June 2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific.

I doubt Radi holds the position you are ascribing to him. IIRC, Ace Baker had sent him an email full of tr00ther "evidence" to which he then posted Mr. Randi's reply. The words "you" and "are" and "wrong" featured prominently.

ETA: Yup! I remembered correctly. Here's the post.

RedIbis · 5th June 2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by stevenwarran

Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi?

Now that's some conspiracy theory!

100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile.

Bobert · 5th June 2008, 05:33 PM

oops double post

Bobert · 5th June 2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

Very sorry, days of pent-up snottiness all came out at once.

Funny I have a cold so the same thing is happening to me!

jhunter1163 · 5th June 2008, 05:38 PM

From the horse's mouth:

Originally Posted by Randi

Yes, I knew Willy Rodriguez well for many years. He worked many shows with me, but there was never an employer/employee relationship. We have visited often since, and we met recently in NYC. He has now joined the WTC conspiracy crowd, and we disagree on his observations and his conclusions on that matter. I value Willy as a good friend.

Gazpacho · 5th June 2008, 05:40 PM

Your comments might be better received, theauthor, if not for the troofers' lengthy record of wanting to revise, not just the explanation of 9/11, but basic concepts of engineering and epistemology.

MIKILLINI · 5th June 2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by theauthor

Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0

Why would you admit to being a part of a non-movement that relies on non-evidence speculation?

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP · 5th June 2008, 06:04 PM

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

gtc · 5th June 2008, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

That is a terrible thing to say about MIKILLINI.

/sarcasm.

leftysergeant · 5th June 2008, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Magenta

Uh, weren't you banned?

Hmmm....

The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink?

Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here?

kookbreaker · 5th June 2008, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile.

"We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense"

-James Randi, TAM 5.5

Cl1mh4224rd · 5th June 2008, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

Oh, don't worry. You're not alone in that...

Horatius · 5th June 2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

From the horse's mouth:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

"We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense"

-James Randi, TAM 5.5

Damn, forgot about those two.

So, even more evidence that Randi is more like us than some people here would like to admit.

FactCheck · 5th June 2008, 07:39 PM

I took this a while ago but it shows the deniers losing steam when I came on the scene.

I'm not the only one who had an effect but I will have to take a little credit.

[Debunking911 takes a bow...]

There are so many others picking up the slack. I think most are on my links page.

Magenta · 5th June 2008, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Hmmm....

The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink?

Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here?

Well, I'm picturing a conga line of zombie posters emerging from the forum's containment facility which was compromised during the shutdown.

SpitfireIX · 5th June 2008, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by FactCheck

I took this a while ago but it shows the deniers losing steam when I came on the scene.

The reason for the huge spike in September 2006 is obvious, but what caused the one the next month?

leftysergeant · 5th June 2008, 08:41 PM

The twoofers got their hopes up that there would be a new investigation and were all over the boards gloating.

nicepants · 6th June 2008, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by theauthor

The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false

That's because most claims made by truthers are false.

The boy who cried "smoking gun" one too many times is suffering the fate of his repeated dishonesty.

I've always been fascinated that a movement that calls itself "truth" spends most of its time lying.

5th June 2008, 03:16 PM	#1
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	It's Over! Seems the game is up. Twoof is a doomed concept. Expect your redundancy cheque from NWO control soon. A backpat for everybody. I could do with a holiday. I hear Barbados is lovely this time of year. LINK Originally Posted by eSkeptic online magazine Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 “truth movement” has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due. Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers’ biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience — the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind — also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise. BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079

5th June 2008, 03:27 PM	#2
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not. The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics.
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

5th June 2008, 03:38 PM	#3
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,585	Debunkers assume that Truther claims are false because the overwhelming majority of them are demonstrably false. When the evidence pro and con is presented in context and objectively evaluated, no Truther theory has yet been shown to be true.
	Last edited by jhunter1163; 5th June 2008 at 03:38 PM.

5th June 2008, 03:40 PM	#5
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

5th June 2008, 03:41 PM	#6
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780	Originally Posted by Reheat Source? Source for what?
theauthor Banned Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 780

5th June 2008, 03:40 PM	#4
Reheat Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 2,036	Originally Posted by theauthor The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics. Source?

5th June 2008, 03:46 PM	#7
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by theauthor Source for what? 9/11 truth has no sources! Cool, you live up to what is expected! Zero evidence. Got evidence? Not if you are 9/11 truth, and you have failed to post one piece ever. Perfect record of pure hearsay.

5th June 2008, 03:46 PM	#8
technoextreme Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,786	Originally Posted by theauthor The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics. There is a difference between believing something that may have some basis in reality and believing in something that is so absurdly stupid you shouldn't have to use much time to think about the topic.
	Last edited by technoextreme; 5th June 2008 at 03:47 PM.

5th June 2008, 03:47 PM	#9
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	Originally Posted by theauthor Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0 Who cares what your interpretation of anything is. Your time is up. You are a twoofer, tWOOf ist kaput, end of story g'night. BV
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079

5th June 2008, 03:51 PM	#10
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by theauthor Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not. The problem with 911 debunkers is that they have decided that 911 claims will always be false, as a result of that they are a laughing stock, even amongst genuine skeptics. If you got that out of an article written in eskeptic...you really have some majorly skewed perspective. Now an open mind is fine but not as open as your truther friends because their minds are so open their brains fell out a few years ago.

5th June 2008, 03:53 PM	#11
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	So let's get this right. The 9/11 woo movement makes up a term to call people who point out their lack of sources and their fabrication of facts or complete lack of them. So they then use that definition to claim it then proves that people under that term don't use any scientific process or investigate. And then that claim itself is based on absolutely nothing. Ah, stupidity rears it's ugly head...

5th June 2008, 03:59 PM	#13
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by theauthor Debunking is exactly what James Randi is not about. Randi insists he is an investigator not a debunker. He says that debunking automatically includes the assumption that the claim is wrong and the debunker is trying to prove it. James Randi has an open mind, the people here do not. Evidence?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

5th June 2008, 04:02 PM	#14
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by Drudgewire Is this ignored buffoon really claiming that Randi would prefer to explore the same oft-trodded out and demonstrably false claims every single time a new yutz makes them rather than mock the 15,000th idiot who peddles the same lie either out of ignorance or out of willful fraud? Has he ever even read a Randi commentary? No. I mean honestly he has proven himself a troll who will make any statement just to pick a fight. His favorite seems to be stating that skeptics are not really skeptic if they are not troofers. He also likes to pretend that the world is laughing at the "debunkers" and not the troofers.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

5th June 2008, 04:08 PM	#15
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,464	So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft... Quote: -A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated, unscientific or pretentious. -As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproving a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunker
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

5th June 2008, 04:10 PM	#16
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...35#post2036135 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2043341 The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

5th June 2008, 04:35 PM	#17
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by Horatius http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...35#post2036135 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post2043341 The only time I know of Randi directly addressing CTs. Seems pretty anti CT to me.

5th June 2008, 04:38 PM	#18
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by Horatius Evidence? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67015&page=5 Quote: You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I… I do not discuss conspiracy theories. James Randi.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

5th June 2008, 04:41 PM	#19
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079	Originally Posted by Dog Town So Randi doesn't like the word, as he sees it. Big deal. Good for him. The word doesn't mean that to everyone. Pfft... Judging by another definition below (at this LINK) and with all respect to Mr Randi, I have no problem being labelled with the tag. I notice too that theauthor has no real response to the thrust of the OP. What's new? BV Quote: de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.
bonavada Guest Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,079

5th June 2008, 05:29 PM	#21
stevenwarran Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 149	Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi? Now that's some conspiracy theory!
stevenwarran Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 149

5th June 2008, 05:32 PM	#22
Magenta Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,311	Originally Posted by stevenwarran Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi? Now that's some conspiracy theory! Uh, weren't you banned?

5th June 2008, 05:33 PM	#23
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by theauthor Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. I doubt Radi holds the position you are ascribing to him. IIRC, Ace Baker had sent him an email full of tr00ther "evidence" to which he then posted Mr. Randi's reply. The words "you" and "are" and "wrong" featured prominently. ETA: Yup! I remembered correctly. Here's the post.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW> Last edited by Loss Leader; 5th June 2008 at 05:40 PM.

5th June 2008, 05:33 PM	#24
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by stevenwarran Is it true that William Rodriguez was a magician's assistant to James Randi? Now that's some conspiracy theory! 100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

5th June 2008, 05:33 PM	#25
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	oops double post
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family Last edited by Bobert; 5th June 2008 at 05:35 PM.

5th June 2008, 05:35 PM	#26
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	Originally Posted by Drudgewire Very sorry, days of pent-up snottiness all came out at once. Funny I have a cold so the same thing is happening to me!
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family

5th June 2008, 05:38 PM	#27
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,585	From the horse's mouth: Originally Posted by Randi Yes, I knew Willy Rodriguez well for many years. He worked many shows with me, but there was never an employer/employee relationship. We have visited often since, and we met recently in NYC. He has now joined the WTC conspiracy crowd, and we disagree on his observations and his conclusions on that matter. I value Willy as a good friend.

5th June 2008, 05:40 PM	#28
Gazpacho Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Valley Lodge, USA Posts: 2,136	Your comments might be better received, theauthor, if not for the troofers' lengthy record of wanting to revise, not just the explanation of 9/11, but basic concepts of engineering and epistemology.

5th June 2008, 05:45 PM	#29
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,881	Originally Posted by theauthor Why would you guys admit to being debunkers? James Randi calls you guys unscientific. Go to 7:00 in this video to hear randi himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTPj9VlNzQ0 Why would you admit to being a part of a non-movement that relies on non-evidence speculation?
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

5th June 2008, 06:04 PM	#30
HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 460	why hasn't anyone else ignored this character?

5th June 2008, 06:39 PM	#31
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP why hasn't anyone else ignored this character? That is a terrible thing to say about MIKILLINI. /sarcasm.
	__________________

5th June 2008, 07:15 PM	#32
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Magenta Uh, weren't you banned? Hmmm.... The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink? Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here?

5th June 2008, 07:24 PM	#33
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	Originally Posted by RedIbis 100% true. From what I understand they've been in communication for awhile. "We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense" -James Randi, TAM 5.5
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,177	__________________ Thanks for helping me win Best Children's Gifts and Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011 & 2012! Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!

5th June 2008, 07:34 PM	#34
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP why hasn't anyone else ignored this character? Oh, don't worry. You're not alone in that...

5th June 2008, 07:37 PM	#35
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,894	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 From the horse's mouth: Originally Posted by kookbreaker "We have lost a dear friend to this nonsense" -James Randi, TAM 5.5 Damn, forgot about those two. So, even more evidence that Randi is more like us than some people here would like to admit.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

5th June 2008, 07:39 PM	#36
FactCheck Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Firmly planted in reality. Posts: 620	I took this a while ago but it shows the deniers losing steam when I came on the scene. I'm not the only one who had an effect but I will have to take a little credit. [Debunking911 takes a bow...] There are so many others picking up the slack. I think most are on my links page.
	__________________ "Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marks "The A.D.L. is the scum of the earth."... "You aren't going to use that last line out of context, are you?" - Alex Jones http://www.debunking911.com Try the new POWER Debunker search engine! http://www.jod911.com

5th June 2008, 08:02 PM	#37
Magenta Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,311	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Hmmm.... The forum went down and it took days to repair, and we have a banned poster showing up. Co-inky-dink? Hackers have no ethics. The twoof movement's ethics are questionable. Have we another conspiracy to investigate here? Well, I'm picturing a conga line of zombie posters emerging from the forum's containment facility which was compromised during the shutdown.