Truthers Take On NIST

JamesB · 20th December 2006, 09:26 PM

The so-called Journal of 9/11 Studies, which as far as I know has split from the "Scholars" has come out with a paper criticizing NIST. I have never heard of the author, Eric Douglas. Apparently he is an architect, but I have no idea as to his credentials. They have an entire website dedicated to attacking NIST called nistreview.org, although they seem short on presenting their credentials to do so, and I am curious as to whether any of them (if even qualified) actually tried to submit comments during the years that NIST was asking for them.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...estigation.pdf

Gravy · 20th December 2006, 09:48 PM

Holy cow, what a piece of crap that paper is! No time to respond in detail now, but my first look tells me that it is well-qualified to be published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 09:48 PM

I cant find any trace of an Architect by this name. I did find a computer programming architect by this name who works for Symantec in SF.

The Almond · 20th December 2006, 09:52 PM

I really wasn't impressed with the paper. I'll have some specifics tomorrow, but it seems to me that the author is drawing more universal premises from single instances. "Because A is not mentioned in this chapter, A is never considered."

In all seriousness, if the author believes he has brought up valid concerns and criticisms of the NIST report he should publish them in a reputible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, or at least forward them on to NIST. NIST has been overwhelmingly receptive of public criticism and open about the draft process. They accept and incorporate critiques from both the laity and professional engineers.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Holy cow, what a piece of crap that paper is! No time to respond in detail now, but my first look tells me that it is well-qualified to be published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen

CurtC · 20th December 2006, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen

Of course, that ain't saying much.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by CurtC

Of course, that ain't saying much.

I await your debunking of it

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen

Well that concludes it. If Wizard says it's detailed and good... it's quite obviously, in reality, blunt and crap.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Well that concludes it. If Wizard says it's detailed and good... it's quite obviously, in reality, blunt and crap.

Grow up troll. Keep working on your screw 911 mysteries film, i'm looking forward to the laughs

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:14 PM

Wow, at a glance I can spot out 3 things totally incorrect. I'll elaborate later

Bandersnatch · 20th December 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

I cant find any trace of an Architect by this name. I did find a computer programming architect by this name who works for Symantec in SF.

I found this guy in less than a minute.

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

Grow up troll. Keep working on your screw 911 mysteries film, i'm looking forward to the laughs

Ok. Vote time.

Who's the Troll. Wizard, or myself. I'll accept answers in any format.

No need to keep working, it's finished. And you have NOTHING to come back against the fact that the creators of this film have manipulated footage and you most certainly can't laugh at scientific law.

And I'll ask you again. How old are you?

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bandersnatch

I found this guy in less than a minute.

Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge.

Well it looks like he really is an architect. That's another to add to the list

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge.

Well it looks like he really is an architect. That's another to add to the list

Now if you could only get some relevant professionals on that list you might get somewhere.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Ok. Vote time.

Who's the Troll. Wizard, or myself. I'll accept answers in any format.

No need to keep working, it's finished. And you have NOTHING to come back against the fact that the creators of this film have manipulated footage and you most certainly can't laugh at scientific law.

And I'll ask you again. How old are you?

They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work

My age is not your concern.

Bandersnatch · 20th December 2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge.

Jeeze, just pointing it out. You know what they say about first impressions...

PS.
If you're serious about the badge...

beachnut · 20th December 2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen

You should get a degree. The paper is junk.

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them.

You are in for a huge suprise. Seriously, do your own research into what they've presented.

Open your eyes.

Quote:

For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work

Who says I'm not?

Quote:

My age is not your concern.

Yes it is. I want to know if you are a child or you're just acting like a child.

uk_dave · 20th December 2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bandersnatch

I found this guy in less than a minute.

Bit of a naff website. Not really very convincing.

and not that we should draw any premature conclusions but....

Quote:

Page Info
Modified : 13th August 2006
Expires : 3rd January 2007

ahem

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

You are in for a huge suprise. Seriously, do your own research into what they've presented.

I have.

Quote:

Who says I'm not?

Your film is called Screw 911 Mysteries. You even plagiarised the screw bit from someone else

Quote:

Yes it is. I want to know if you are a child or you're just acting like a child.

Now you know what it is like to want

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

I have.

Ha!

Quote:

Your film is called Screw 911 Mysteries. You even plagiarised the screw bit from someone else

Not true. I obtained permission beforehand. You should avoid making assumptions buddy.

No one has copyright to the word "Screw" anyway.

Bandersnatch · 20th December 2006, 10:32 PM

After my 1337 google badge earning skillz, I believe that may be him. A whois search for the above domain gives an email that seems to be used on the NISTchallenge website.

beachnut · 20th December 2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work

My age is not your concern.

Hard work; Just lies; why does Wizard gravitate to lies?

Darn, it is just a lie!

If Doc is making a film to show the lies he deserves a medal for doing it. That film sucks, and if he took the time he was tortured as he had to wade thru BS for days and weeks just to show some truth.

LashL · 20th December 2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Bandersnatch

I found this guy in less than a minute.

I hope, for that guy's sake, that it is really him. If it is not, and if the guy at the link is a legitimate architect, etc. and is not the author of the crappy paper, his reputation is going to be trashed as a result of a crappy paper written by someone else aligning himself with the troofers. Of course, if it is really him, he deserves the trashing.

(That said, the linked website is pretty lame and I certainly wouldn't contract his services to design even a deck at my cottage let alone anything else on the basis of that site. Most legitimate architects would actually provide credentials, office address, fax numbers, CV, details on their education, expertise and experience, etc. so I am instantly doubtful about this whole thing. Alas, it is late so the rest of this will have to wait until tomorrow, but suffice it to say that like nearly all of the other "experts" that align themselves with troofers, they always seem to fall short in the details, and always seem to be pretty obscure. Of course, I'll revisit that if evidence to the contrary is provided, but those are my initial reactions.)

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Ha!

Not true. I obtained permission beforehand. You should avoid making assumptions buddy.

No one has copyright to the word "Screw" anyway.

So there is absolutely nothing original in your film. Oh my.

Heres what I predict it will be like:

911 Mysteries Narrator: The towers fell in 10 seconds

Fungi: No it was 13 actually

911 Mysteries Narrator: Building seven collapsed mysteriously

Fungi: It wasn't mysterious

911 Mysteries Narrator: There were bombs in the building

Fungi: I don't believe you

etc etc

Pathetic

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:39 PM

Thanks beachnut

I find it funny how Wizard thinks he is qualified to talk about this project before he's seen it. Much like he dismissed al Qaeda videos as fake without having seen them.

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

911 Mysteries Narrator: The towers fell in 10 seconds

Fungi: No it was 13 actually

911 Mysteries Narrator: Building seven collapsed mysteriously

Fungi: It wasn't mysterious

911 Mysteries Narrator: There were bombs in the building

Fungi: I don't believe you

NOTHING like that.

I actually do analysis. Unlike yourself.

beachnut · 20th December 2006, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Ha!

Not true. I obtained permission beforehand. You should avoid making assumptions buddy.

No one has copyright to the word "Screw" anyway.

Wizard is sensitive about the having to screw on his head after loading it with CT stuff.

If you are doing the Mystery rebuttal you deserve high praise; I get sick watching that pile of lies and junk. It must be the voice that brainwashes the CT inclined.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

NOTHING like that.

I actually do analysis. Unlike yourself.

Analysis? What are your qualifications for this analysis?

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:44 PM

The draft copy is being uploaded now. 3 people have been selected to peer-review it.

After this, corrections might have to be made. The video will then be re-encoded and uploaded again for public release.

Gravy · 20th December 2006, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work.

Excuse me, Wizard, but you said you'd "love to be proved wrong."

Then why are you not welcoming critiques of conspiracist literature and videos?

Please explain, Wizard.

As an aside, do you know that I appear in "911 Mysteries" as a government agent? It's true!

beachnut · 20th December 2006, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Thanks beachnut

I find it funny how Wizard thinks he is qualified to talk about this project before he's seen it. Much like he dismissed al Qaeda videos as fake without having seen them.

I know, he is blasting your video based on what he thinks someone would put in it?

Maybe the reason he leans to the CT world could be his primary research tool is google, not his brain. I would tell him google can work if he uses his head and finds real work.

John Blonn · 20th December 2006, 10:49 PM

Ahh so NOW Wizard is concerned with qualifications. How convenient!

LashL · 20th December 2006, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Hard work; Just lies; why does Wizard gravitate to lies?

Darn, it is just a lie!

If Doc is making a film to show the lies he deserves a medal for doing it. That film sucks, and if he took the time he was tortured as he had to wade thru BS for days and weeks just to show some truth.

Yes, it's easy for those with zero credentials, zero research skills, zero expertise, and zero willingness to learn, to criticize others who actually do more than post on message boards, which is all that "Wizard" does.

Semi-appropriately, the Wizard of Oz springs to mind, specifically the line, "Pay absolutely no attention to the man behind the curtain" to which it is appropriate to add in these circumstances, "For he is but a troll, plain and simple."

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

Analysis? What are your qualifications for this analysis?

Well. I think you have misunderstood my statement.

I did an analysis of the film. Which included obtaining all the stock footage that 9/11 Mysteries used and comparing it to the footage used in their film. This includes interviews, collapse footage etc. That alone will prove that the creators of this film are manipulative and liars.

Furthermore, I used common and advanced scientific knowledge and peer-reviewed papers to prove that 9/11 mysteries claims are based on nothing. This goes from showing how much thermite would be needed to bring down the towers, to showing how certain weight claims etc are false.

But most of all, I show how many claims they make are based on absolutley nothing. Claiming that molten "steel" was found under the towers. They fail to prove this - I point it out. Obviously there are many more things I have pointed out but you'll see them later on.

The logic in 9/11 Mysteries is also a serious issue that is addressed.

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Excuse me, Wizard, but you said you'd "love to be proved wrong."

Then why are you not welcoming critiques of conspiracist literature and videos?

Please explain, Wizard.

As an aside, do you know that I appear in "911 Mysteries" as a government agent? It's true!

Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me.

Gravy · 20th December 2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me.

How does the source of an informed criticism affect its validity? Please explain. Shouldn't a work stand on its merits?

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by doctorfungi

Well. I think you have misunderstood my statement.

I did an analysis of the film. Which included obtaining all the stock footage that 9/11 Mysteries used and comparing it to the footage used in their film. This includes interviews, collapse footage etc. That alone will prove that the creators of this film are manipulative and liars.

Furthermore, I used common and advanced scientific knowledge and peer-reviewed papers to prove that 9/11 mysteries claims are based on nothing.

Could I have links to these peer reviewed papers?

If they are manipulating footage they would surely know that people could see the original and expose them. I hope your sources for this footage was primary

Wizard · 20th December 2006, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

How does the source of an informed criticism affect its validity? Please explain?

If a neutral structural engineer analysed 911 mysteries I would be delighted.

Fungi has an agenda and no expertise.

Gravy, you wont even give the time of day to an Architect's critique of NIST

The Doc · 20th December 2006, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wizard

If they are manipulating footage they would surely know that people could see the original and expose them.

That's what I thought! Turns out someone is exposing them.

Quote:

I hope your sources for this footage was primary

Sure are.

20th December 2006, 09:26 PM	#1
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Truthers Take On NIST The so-called Journal of 9/11 Studies, which as far as I know has split from the "Scholars" has come out with a paper criticizing NIST. I have never heard of the author, Eric Douglas. Apparently he is an architect, but I have no idea as to his credentials. They have an entire website dedicated to attacking NIST called nistreview.org, although they seem short on presenting their credentials to do so, and I am curious as to whether any of them (if even qualified) actually tried to submit comments during the years that NIST was asking for them. http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...estigation.pdf
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

20th December 2006, 09:48 PM	#2
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Holy cow, what a piece of crap that paper is! No time to respond in detail now, but my first look tells me that it is well-qualified to be published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

20th December 2006, 09:48 PM	#3
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	I cant find any trace of an Architect by this name. I did find a computer programming architect by this name who works for Symantec in SF.
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 09:52 PM	#4
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	I really wasn't impressed with the paper. I'll have some specifics tomorrow, but it seems to me that the author is drawing more universal premises from single instances. "Because A is not mentioned in this chapter, A is never considered." In all seriousness, if the author believes he has brought up valid concerns and criticisms of the NIST report he should publish them in a reputible, peer-reviewed scientific journal, or at least forward them on to NIST. NIST has been overwhelmingly receptive of public criticism and open about the draft process. They accept and incorporate critiques from both the laity and professional engineers.
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

20th December 2006, 10:00 PM	#5
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Gravy Holy cow, what a piece of crap that paper is! No time to respond in detail now, but my first look tells me that it is well-qualified to be published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:06 PM	#6
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Originally Posted by Wizard I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen Of course, that ain't saying much.
	__________________ Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.

20th December 2006, 10:07 PM	#7
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by CurtC Of course, that ain't saying much. I await your debunking of it
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:08 PM	#8
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen Well that concludes it. If Wizard says it's detailed and good... it's quite obviously, in reality, blunt and crap.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:12 PM	#9
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by doctorfungi Well that concludes it. If Wizard says it's detailed and good... it's quite obviously, in reality, blunt and crap. Grow up troll. Keep working on your screw 911 mysteries film, i'm looking forward to the laughs
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:14 PM	#10
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Wow, at a glance I can spot out 3 things totally incorrect. I'll elaborate later
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:15 PM	#11
Bandersnatch Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 411	Originally Posted by Wizard I cant find any trace of an Architect by this name. I did find a computer programming architect by this name who works for Symantec in SF. I found this guy in less than a minute.

20th December 2006, 10:16 PM	#12
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard Grow up troll. Keep working on your screw 911 mysteries film, i'm looking forward to the laughs Ok. Vote time. Who's the Troll. Wizard, or myself. I'll accept answers in any format. No need to keep working, it's finished. And you have NOTHING to come back against the fact that the creators of this film have manipulated footage and you most certainly can't laugh at scientific law. And I'll ask you again. How old are you?
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:18 PM	#13
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Bandersnatch I found this guy in less than a minute. Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge. Well it looks like he really is an architect. That's another to add to the list
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:20 PM	#14
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge. Well it looks like he really is an architect. That's another to add to the list Now if you could only get some relevant professionals on that list you might get somewhere.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:20 PM	#15
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by doctorfungi Ok. Vote time. Who's the Troll. Wizard, or myself. I'll accept answers in any format. No need to keep working, it's finished. And you have NOTHING to come back against the fact that the creators of this film have manipulated footage and you most certainly can't laugh at scientific law. And I'll ask you again. How old are you? They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work My age is not your concern.
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:23 PM	#16
Bandersnatch Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 411	Quote: Wow your better at googling than me. Would you like some sort of badge. Jeeze, just pointing it out. You know what they say about first impressions... PS. If you're serious about the badge...

20th December 2006, 10:24 PM	#17
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,908	Originally Posted by Wizard It looks like a very good paper. I haven't read it all but its the most detail critique I have seen You should get a degree. The paper is junk.

20th December 2006, 10:25 PM	#18
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. You are in for a huge suprise. Seriously, do your own research into what they've presented. Open your eyes. Quote: For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work Who says I'm not? Quote: My age is not your concern. Yes it is. I want to know if you are a child or you're just acting like a child.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:25 PM	#19
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Bandersnatch I found this guy in less than a minute. Bit of a naff website. Not really very convincing. and not that we should draw any premature conclusions but.... Quote: Page Info Modified : 13th August 2006 Expires : 3rd January 2007 ahem
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

20th December 2006, 10:28 PM	#20
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by doctorfungi You are in for a huge suprise. Seriously, do your own research into what they've presented. I have. Quote: Who says I'm not? Your film is called Screw 911 Mysteries. You even plagiarised the screw bit from someone else Quote: Yes it is. I want to know if you are a child or you're just acting like a child. Now you know what it is like to want
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:32 PM	#21
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard I have. Ha! Quote: Your film is called Screw 911 Mysteries. You even plagiarised the screw bit from someone else Not true. I obtained permission beforehand. You should avoid making assumptions buddy. No one has copyright to the word "Screw" anyway.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:37 PM	#23
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,908	Originally Posted by Wizard They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work My age is not your concern. Hard work; Just lies; why does Wizard gravitate to lies? Darn, it is just a lie! If Doc is making a film to show the lies he deserves a medal for doing it. That film sucks, and if he took the time he was tortured as he had to wade thru BS for days and weeks just to show some truth.

20th December 2006, 10:38 PM	#24
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,268	Originally Posted by Bandersnatch I found this guy in less than a minute. I hope, for that guy's sake, that it is really him. If it is not, and if the guy at the link is a legitimate architect, etc. and is not the author of the crappy paper, his reputation is going to be trashed as a result of a crappy paper written by someone else aligning himself with the troofers. Of course, if it is really him, he deserves the trashing. (That said, the linked website is pretty lame and I certainly wouldn't contract his services to design even a deck at my cottage let alone anything else on the basis of that site. Most legitimate architects would actually provide credentials, office address, fax numbers, CV, details on their education, expertise and experience, etc. so I am instantly doubtful about this whole thing. Alas, it is late so the rest of this will have to wait until tomorrow, but suffice it to say that like nearly all of the other "experts" that align themselves with troofers, they always seem to fall short in the details, and always seem to be pretty obscure. Of course, I'll revisit that if evidence to the contrary is provided, but those are my initial reactions.)

20th December 2006, 10:38 PM	#25
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by doctorfungi Ha! Not true. I obtained permission beforehand. You should avoid making assumptions buddy. No one has copyright to the word "Screw" anyway. So there is absolutely nothing original in your film. Oh my. Heres what I predict it will be like: 911 Mysteries Narrator: The towers fell in 10 seconds Fungi: No it was 13 actually 911 Mysteries Narrator: Building seven collapsed mysteriously Fungi: It wasn't mysterious 911 Mysteries Narrator: There were bombs in the building Fungi: I don't believe you etc etc Pathetic
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:39 PM	#26
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Thanks beachnut I find it funny how Wizard thinks he is qualified to talk about this project before he's seen it. Much like he dismissed al Qaeda videos as fake without having seen them.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:41 PM	#27
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard 911 Mysteries Narrator: The towers fell in 10 seconds Fungi: No it was 13 actually 911 Mysteries Narrator: Building seven collapsed mysteriously Fungi: It wasn't mysterious 911 Mysteries Narrator: There were bombs in the building Fungi: I don't believe you NOTHING like that. I actually do analysis. Unlike yourself.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:43 PM	#29
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by doctorfungi NOTHING like that. I actually do analysis. Unlike yourself. Analysis? What are your qualifications for this analysis?
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:44 PM	#30
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	The draft copy is being uploaded now. 3 people have been selected to peer-review it. After this, corrections might have to be made. The video will then be re-encoded and uploaded again for public release.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

20th December 2006, 10:48 PM	#31
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Wizard They have manipulated nothing. I hope you are careful if you intend to defame them. For once, make an original fim supporting the official story instead of pasting crap over someone elses hard work. Excuse me, Wizard, but you said you'd "love to be proved wrong." Then why are you not welcoming critiques of conspiracist literature and videos? Please explain, Wizard. As an aside, do you know that I appear in "911 Mysteries" as a government agent? It's true!
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

20th December 2006, 10:49 PM	#32
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,908	Originally Posted by doctorfungi Thanks beachnut I find it funny how Wizard thinks he is qualified to talk about this project before he's seen it. Much like he dismissed al Qaeda videos as fake without having seen them. I know, he is blasting your video based on what he thinks someone would put in it? Maybe the reason he leans to the CT world could be his primary research tool is google, not his brain. I would tell him google can work if he uses his head and finds real work.

20th December 2006, 10:49 PM	#33
John Blonn Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 394	Ahh so NOW Wizard is concerned with qualifications. How convenient!

20th December 2006, 10:49 PM	#34
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,268	Originally Posted by beachnut Hard work; Just lies; why does Wizard gravitate to lies? Darn, it is just a lie! If Doc is making a film to show the lies he deserves a medal for doing it. That film sucks, and if he took the time he was tortured as he had to wade thru BS for days and weeks just to show some truth. Yes, it's easy for those with zero credentials, zero research skills, zero expertise, and zero willingness to learn, to criticize others who actually do more than post on message boards, which is all that "Wizard" does. Semi-appropriately, the Wizard of Oz springs to mind, specifically the line, "Pay absolutely no attention to the man behind the curtain" to which it is appropriate to add in these circumstances, "For he is but a troll, plain and simple."

20th December 2006, 10:50 PM	#35
The Doc Curing Stupidity Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,160	Originally Posted by Wizard Analysis? What are your qualifications for this analysis? Well. I think you have misunderstood my statement. I did an analysis of the film. Which included obtaining all the stock footage that 9/11 Mysteries used and comparing it to the footage used in their film. This includes interviews, collapse footage etc. That alone will prove that the creators of this film are manipulative and liars. Furthermore, I used common and advanced scientific knowledge and peer-reviewed papers to prove that 9/11 mysteries claims are based on nothing. This goes from showing how much thermite would be needed to bring down the towers, to showing how certain weight claims etc are false. But most of all, I show how many claims they make are based on absolutley nothing. Claiming that molten "steel" was found under the towers. They fail to prove this - I point it out. Obviously there are many more things I have pointed out but you'll see them later on. The logic in 9/11 Mysteries is also a serious issue that is addressed.
	__________________ Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide http://www.911mysteriesguide.com Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934 Last edited by The Doc; 20th December 2006 at 10:53 PM.

20th December 2006, 10:52 PM	#36
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479	Originally Posted by Gravy Excuse me, Wizard, but you said you'd "love to be proved wrong." Then why are you not welcoming critiques of conspiracist literature and videos? Please explain, Wizard. As an aside, do you know that I appear in "911 Mysteries" as a government agent? It's true! Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me.
Wizard Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 479

20th December 2006, 10:54 PM	#37
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Wizard Critiques are good. If they come from qualified people that is. A guy on a foirum pasting non expert views over a film in Windows Movie Maker does not impress me. How does the source of an informed criticism affect its validity? Please explain. Shouldn't a work stand on its merits?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links