Come on Pard, you are one of the level headed ones here, you can see that DavidJames has gone off the deep end. You guys may want to give him vacation or something. He needs some time to clear his head and not think of the woos for a bit. I am really worried about him.
Not to worry my friend. Others here, much brighter, more energetic and armed with much more data, are better able to represent reality in the face of the disingenuous lies dribbled by the likes of those at Loose Change.
I suffer many human frailties, one of which has become especially short, patience. It didn't take long to realize the hardcore losers at LC won't be swayed by facts or evidence. How does one argue the merits of an analysis of structural failure performed by multiple independent organizations. An analysis performed by named, expert engineers, documented in painstaking detail, data openly available for all to review, against someone who shows a picture, points to smoke and says "looks like thermite". The LC peer review is completed when his lackey follows and wonders aloud how us skeptics can continue to ignore these "facts". How indeed?
I decided to expose the losers inability to perform the most elementary research and analysis. Perhaps such a simply exposition would turn on a light bulb, if not in the dim cavernous vacuums of their own minds, perhaps in the more receptive minds of others. If someone is unable to crawl, how can anyone expect them to walk, much less run?
It turned out much simpler then I expected with my comments on the volume of johndoeX postings. It also turned out much better as jennabell was snared as well. I made my claim and posted the direct sources for the data. I saw the same basic lack of critical thinking the CTers use to defend their conspiracy theories exposed in this small example
- First there was rejection of the claim without any research of the facts
- Then when they did do research, they stopped when they felt they obtained the result they were looking for.
- Then, using the incomplete data, made a false assumption based on incorrect reading of the original claim
- They then attempted further research but completely misread the data, again reaching an erroneously conclusion.
- Finally, after one reported the erroneous claim, the other patted him on the back and regurgitated the incorrect conclusion.
These basic failures are replete throughout conspiracy theorists everywhere. Surely a reasonable person would recognize these shortcomings. Surely they would, considering the mild implications of the claims in question, make the small concession that their accusations about the original claim and data were incorrect. But these aren't reasonable people, they are blind idealogues, zealots, who have adopted a belief and now search blindly, grasp recklessly for anything to support their belief. Realizing that recognition of their mistakes would expose them as the incompetent frauds they are, they attacked.
It's amusing to read them say how I'm too emotional, or unstable or worse. I have a tough job. One where I'm required to meet aggressive schedules, manage multi-million dollar budgets, deal with customers with expectations greatly exceeding reality. Playing whack-a-mole with a handful of CTers is the best therapy and most relaxing experience I've had in the past 6 months.
Thanks johndoeX and jennabell, you guys are the best.
