"Engineer Ed" Hoax Proves Bias at Wikipedia

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let's see. I tried to add molten metal into the article for weeks on end. Now, is there anyone here who wants to attempt to make the case that molten metal was not observed flowing and in pools in the rubble of all three "collapsed" WTC buildings, and also cascading out of WTC2 at the 80th floor? Of course it was. These are mainstream facts.

................?
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I have not followed this debate closely. Would you mind telling us where and when the molten metal was observed? Further would you explain the significance of the molten metal to someone who is not acquainted with the issue?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Let's see. I tried to add molten metal into the article for weeks on end. Now, is there anyone here who wants to attempt to make the case that molten metal was not observed flowing and in pools in the rubble of all three "collapsed" WTC buildings, and also cascading out of WTC2 at the 80th floor? Of course it was. These are mainstream facts.
Click to expand...

Mike Williams has chased these reports back to their sources and made a very strong case that there are no genuinely firsthand reports of pools of molten metal in the ruins and absolutely no evidence that anything which might have been observed in a molten state was steel.

Read it yourself, [rule8]head: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Moreover, if you had the tiniest comprehension of the relationship between energy, power and time and how that relates to explosives and incendiaries you'd comprehend that the presence of melted metal in the ruins would make a case for the fires which continued to burn in the rubble being hot enough to melt whatever-it-was, and not a case for the use of explosives or incendiaries.

Or do you actually know that and ignore it because it doesn't fit your theology?

These are facts which are totally censored, at least they were when I was trying to edit. Wikipedia aministrator Tom Harrison repeatedly deleted my factual edits. He and admininstrator "Mongo" run a very effective "good cop/bad cop" routine. Mongo, who works for Department of Homeland Security, is continualy serving up the flame bait, while Tom Harrison quiety deletes anything outside the official script.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of Mongo's employment or is this just another case of assuming that anyone who dares to thwart your lunacy must be an agent of the eevil eevil gummint?

Truthbeater, it's becoming more and more obvious that you wouldn't recognize evidence, logic or honesty if they were dangling from your private parts by six-inch steel teeth.
 
geni said:
Cds containing copies of wikipedia exist how far can you throw those?
Click to expand...

For the answer to such a question to have relevance we would first have to determine how recording the wikipedia database to the CD affects it's aerodynamic properties.

Would the wiki CD have a measurably different trajectory than a blank CD?

Would a wiki CD have a different tracjectory than a CD with a different type of data, like perhaps 600 megabytes of goat porn?
 
Well, since this thread seems to have been created for nothing other than attention, I'll jump in.

<babyvoice>Truthseeker1234, who's a funny little rebelious disrupter of the status quo? You are! Yes, you are! Who's our little Che Guevara in ones and zeros? You are! That's right!</babyvoice>
 
Do you have a .wav or .mp3 of that we can download, Abby? ;)

BTW, you misspelled "widdle", "diswupter" and "Guevawa".
 
Truthseeker1234 - Are you seriously mentally impaired? What are the meds they have you on at the home?

I suppose this is your superior way of debating. We can call you a liar as often as we want, but you won't accept it until you prove it for yourself! You win. It's proven. You're a liar. Amazingly, you didn't require a photograph or a dissertation from Gordon Ross. But there it is nevertheless....

You are a fraud and a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Truthseeker1234 - Are you seriously mentally impaired? What are the meds they have you on at the home?

I suppose this is your superior way of debating. We can call you a liar as often as we want, but you won't accept it until you prove it for yourself! You win. It's proven. You're a liar. Amazingly, you didn't require a photograph or a dissertation from Gordon Ross. But there it is nevertheless....

You are a fraud and a liar. Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

I don´t think he´s a liar, Foolmewunz - i´d rather
start to think, that all the people with deep intentions
to find more about it, have some kind of a mental wound,
that may be still open.

That seems to be the reason for many, who are not able
to release their emotional connection to 9/11. 5 years
may be a to short time to process the shock - emotionally,
not intellectually.

What do you think?
 
Oliver said:
I don´t think he´s a liar, Foolmewunz - i´d rather
start to think, that all the people with deep intentions
to find more about it, have some kind of a mental wound,
that may be still open.

That seems to be the reason for many, who are not able
to release their emotional connection to 9/11. 5 years
may be a to short time to process the shock - emotionally,
not intellectually.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

That may be the underlying malady, but the illness, if you will, manifests itself outwardly in lies and distortions. No amount of "evidence" posted by TS1234 is ever to be taken seriously any longer. He was demonstrated that he is willing to perpetrate a fraud to make a point.

I'm sure this is "clever s***" in dorm rooms. But while he dances on the graves of the deceased (several acquaintances of mine, including one burned up in the jet fuel fire that he claims is a lie, too), I will no longer accept anything he posts as remotely accurate.

Read his posts again, he's twittering like a spinster who just got the bon bon with the cherry center! He nearly wet himself he was so excited to tell everyone what a merry lark he'd had! If he'd go to that much effort on Engineer Ed, how difficult to then assume that some or all of his other sources are equally bogus?

Sorry - liar is still the appropriate term.
 
Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against original research?

Wouldn't this alone disqualify most CT junk?
 
Foolmewunz said:
That may be the underlying malady, but the illness, if you will, manifests itself outwardly in lies and distortions. No amount of "evidence" posted by TS1234 is ever to be taken seriously any longer. He was demonstrated that he is willing to perpetrate a fraud to make a point.

I'm sure this is "clever s***" in dorm rooms. But while he dances on the graves of the deceased (several acquaintances of mine, including one burned up in the jet fuel fire that he claims is a lie, too), I will no longer accept anything he posts as remotely accurate.

Read his posts again, he's twittering like a spinster who just got the bon bon with the cherry center! He nearly wet himself he was so excited to tell everyone what a merry lark he'd had! If he'd go to that much effort on Engineer Ed, how difficult to then assume that some or all of his other sources are equally bogus?

Sorry - liar is still the appropriate term.
Click to expand...

I must admit, that i did not read all of his
comments to take care of my nerves, but
i meant this could be a general reason for
CT´s, who don´t listen to the explanations
the people at JREF have.

It seems, that these are not the right answers
they are searching for and maybe most of them
don´t even know the real questions they have,
just because these questions are to deep in their
subconscious and still not processed properly.

We got no psychologists in here, do we?
 
Last edited:
A while back, a poster at one of the Bigfoot forums did something similar. He claimed to be working on a suit, and showed pictures of it to the forum members, asking for opinions and advice. What they didn't realize is, the suit that they decried as fake and obvious was, in fact, images of Patty cut straight from the PGF.

Their reactions are remarkably similar to some posters' reactions here.

I hate to say it - but I can agree with what he was attempting, even if what he did proved nothing significant, and in fact only served to discredit him locally.

Yes, TS is a complete moron, but I think he really perceives a latent bias at Wikipedia, and the gap between E.E.'s post's treatment and his own only serves to confirm it to him.

Still, we already knew he's a complete liar and loon - so that was nothing new.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Yes, TS is a complete moron, but I think he really perceives a latent bias at Wikipedia, and the gap between E.E.'s post's treatment and his own only serves to confirm it to him.

Still, we already knew he's a complete liar and loon - so that was nothing new.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong... I am no fan of Wikipedia. I sometimes use them to cheat in forum debates because I know that most people go no further. But I'll keep buying the latest version of my Columbia Encyclopedia (handiest single volume that I've seen) every decade....

Populism as Research is a nice idea, but at best you're going to wind up with what 51% of the people agree to. I've found too many factual errors on mundane topics (Chinese Tea was my last such....) to believe them on matters of opinion, the arts, politics, etc.... When the length of the entry is only directly related to the enthusiasm of the author/authors who donated their time (see "Woodstock" versus say "Teapot Dome"), then it can't be your sole research tool. Some of the stuff is excellent (staying on China and Tea as sub-themes, see "Boxer Rebellion"), and informative. But I think I'd keep the jury out on anything taking place during the last 20/40 years. Too many emotional filters on the contributors.

The mere fact that they accept articles on topics they don't know and obviously do not have sufficient members of peer groups to review should tell you to take it as a starting point or at least take it with a grain of salt.

eta: fan isn't the right word - I'm a fan of them sometimes. I meant to say I didn't blindly believe everything I read there.
 
To go back to TS's original post here, he cites as an example, a NY Times article citation:

#1: "ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC"

being changed to:

#2: "A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel"

PrisonPlanet has a copy of the article (also available somewhere on Geocities), with the first title. [1]

However, NY Times actually uses the second title. [2]

So, for Wikipedia to "cleanse" this was entirely appropriate.

-Kate
 
Sokal Hoax vs. Engineer Ed Hoax

The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading postmodern cultural studies journal called Social Text. In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".

The Engineer Ed hoax was a hoax by editor TruthSeeker1234 perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. In 2006, TruthSeeker1234, an individual greatly interested in 9/11, submitted a sockpuppet-authored edit for publication in Wikipedia, as an experiment to see if an encyclopedia in that field would, in TruthSeeker1234's words: "publish an article liberally salted with completed unsourced nonsense if (a) it supported the official story of 9/11 and (b) it flattered the administrator's ideological preconceptions".
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading postmodern cultural studies journal called Social Text. In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".

The Engineer Ed hoax was a hoax by editor TruthSeeker1234 perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. In 2006, TruthSeeker1234, an individual greatly interested in 9/11, submitted a sockpuppet-authored edit for publication in Wikipedia, as an experiment to see if an encyclopedia in that field would, in TruthSeeker1234's words: "publish an article liberally salted with completed unsourced nonsense if (a) it supported the official story of 9/11 and (b) it flattered the administrator's ideological preconceptions".
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing wiki to a professional journal?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading postmodern cultural studies journal called Social Text. In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".

The Engineer Ed hoax was a hoax by editor TruthSeeker1234 perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of a leading online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. In 2006, TruthSeeker1234, an individual greatly interested in 9/11, submitted a sockpuppet-authored edit for publication in Wikipedia, as an experiment to see if an encyclopedia in that field would, in TruthSeeker1234's words: "publish an article liberally salted with completed unsourced nonsense if (a) it supported the official story of 9/11 and (b) it flattered the administrator's ideological preconceptions".
Click to expand...
Couple problems there, LieSpreader.

Wiki published the thing as soon as you hit submit.

Wiki has no editorial staff (per se).

Wiki is not a scholarly publication covering a specific field.

Your edits were corrected once someone noticed them.

Other than that, it's a perfect analogy.
 
Oh, good grief.

Bobby Fischer became the youngest chess grandmaster in 1958. He overwhelmed Boris Spassky to become the only American world titlist.

Abby Scott won the female division in a childs' chess tournament in 1989. Seven girls played.

Ergo, 9/11 was an inside job.

QED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom