• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Missing our Troofs

ref said:
(4 HOUR!) event.
Click to expand...
I have often commented in these pages about the truthy people's inability to be concise. Those radio interviews are painful for me, but I'd be suicidal watching that drone on live for 4 hours.
 
BillyRayValentine said:
I'm not sure why you'd assume this. By my experience, the propensity for truthiness is much higher among Canadians (or any foreigners, for that matter) than it is among Americans. Which makes perfect sense, given the anti-americanism that runs rampant in the world.
Click to expand...
You do realize though that Canadians have more love for the USA than most if not all other countries in the world? Anti-Americanism in Canada barely rises above stories of Americans not knowing that most of Canada speaks English or arriving in Toronto in July with skiis on the roof rack.

The Montreal event was held at a Quebec university. Idealistic, angry, and misinformed college students aren't exactly hard to come by, so it's not surprising they were able to put some butts in the seats. But I seriously doubt they filled a 700 person auditorium. Whenever these nitiwits draw more than a few dozen together in one place, they document the hell out of it (slow pans of the audience, etc.), then post videos and crow about it all over the net.
Click to expand...

McGill U.? Fairly large university with a medical school, and Montreal has a population of about 1 million. Going by the numbers in Saskatoon that would equate to about 80-100 people showing up.
 
carlitos said:
I have often commented in these pages about the truthy people's inability to be concise. Those radio interviews are painful for me, but I'd be suicidal watching that drone on live for 4 hours.
Click to expand...
Most truthers seem to lack the reasoning processes needed to focus and specifically define issues THEN to put those issues in a full context where they are logically related to the other factors.

Hence all the discussions about single issues such as whether or not there was thermXte when the real issue is that there was no way that thermXte could have been used. ditto molten metal in the basement when there is no way it could have come from thermXte up in the towers causing collapse. Plus all the other truther single isolated issue nonsense. How often have you seen a truther present a reasoned complete claim? I doubt that you can quote one so I can rest my case. :rolleyes:

The essential arguments are simply too complex for the limited reasoning skills of most truthers. Look at any of the truther dominated threads here and ask "Is he out of his depth?"

In fact I have several times expressed the opinion that inability to reason about complex issues pre-disposes people to be truthers.

Whether I am right on not in that thought the correlation is certainly high. Witness the desperate efforts our truthers put into keeping discussions down in the details.
 
carlitos said:
I have often commented in these pages about the truthy people's inability to be concise. Those radio interviews are painful for me, but I'd be suicidal watching that drone on live for 4 hours.
Click to expand...

Gage profits from people's susceptibility to falling for the Sunk-Cost Fallacy. (He also suffers from it himself.)

The Skeptic's Dictionary said:
When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can’t stop now, otherwise what I’ve invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project.

To continue to invest in a hopeless project is irrational. Such behavior may be a pathetic attempt to delay having to face the consequences of one's poor judgment. The irrationality is a way to save face, to appear to be knowledgeable, when in fact one is acting like an idiot.
Click to expand...
 
Orphia Nay said:
Gage profits from people's susceptibility to falling for the Sunk-Cost Fallacy. (He also suffers from it himself.)
Click to expand...
True.

The issue from Gage's perspective however is "what more can I gain by continuing this racket?" (Whether or not he sees it as a racket.)

So the ongoing cost benefit is:
"What do I get from now on compared with what I have to put in from now on?"

..and he has done all the set-up work so it is mostly pay back now. He doesn't even put effort into honing his presentations. The financial rewards don't appear to be decreasing (yet) although the ego rewards may be - less people turning up for his events.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I have often commented in these pages about the truthy people's inability to be concise.
Click to expand...

Word salad and wall of text are woo slinger trademarks. A woo slinger will never say in one word what they can say in 4 paragraphs worth of stream of consciousness, run on sentence, no punctuation or capitalization word vomiting.
 
One word: mine.

Nobody else is talking about multiple types of metallic foam, but I am!
It's new and improved.:blush:

T.A.M. said:
I am not saying get rid off it, but rather leave it here, but close all threads in it, to remain here for research purposes.

Open a couple of general 9/11 CT threads in the general CT section as any new things come forward.

Seriously, in the last TWO YEARS, how many TRULY new and debate worthy topics or issues have come up 9/11 related?

TAM:)
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Wood has likely solved a big part of the 9/11 question, but not all of it.
She has rather conclusively demonstrated the physics involved in the
new technology used to destroy the WTC.

She hasn't found the weapon, but she did describe the physics.
What I expect is that others will take on her work and continue it,
and that she herself will continue it. At the end of the day, however,
my dust samples rule the roost.

Any proposed mechanism of WTC destruction must be able to produce
samples similar to those that I collected from near Ground Zero.
Whether or not Dr. Wood is correct, the hijacking theorists and the
thermite theorists have both been proved wrong by my samples.



jammonius said:
Oh dear is right. You deliberately misconstrued my post. Competent was meant in the sense of that word that means duly authorized and funded. Dr. Wood has determined what destroyed the WTC and has proven it. However, her efforts were those of a dedicated citizen-scientist undertaken in order to expose the falsity of common storyline and the fraud of those who were authorized by Congress and paid with taxpayer funds to determine what destroyed the WTC and who, instead, committed fraud.
Click to expand...
 
I like this. 9/11 happened only one way.

tj15 said:
I am just wondering what you THINK happened. Can we agree that 9/11 happened only one way?

I know it is all pure speculation. I'm not even asking you to prove your theory. You don't even have to say who you think carried out the attacks or why they did it. I'm just wondering how you think the attacks were carried out... What was the "grand plan" for 9/11?
Click to expand...
 
Excellent.


BigAl said:
There are no first-hand eyewitness reports of molten steel on the pile at WTC. All the reports are second-hand.

There is no physical evidence for molten steel on the pile.

There is no science that would show how the temperatures needed to maintain molten steel were created and maintained for weeks.

Given that there is no evidence and no science, we can dismiss the second-hand stories as hyperbole.
Click to expand...
 
If you reference Judy Wood and space beams, then you don't know
Judy Wood or her work.

#1 Her work is primarily about field effects. Field effects are not space beams.
#2 Her detractors (and only her detractors) use the phrase "space beams"
in reference to her work.

She is a serious scientist, and among only a handful of scientists who
do not support the theory of explosive demolition of the WTC. Among this
handful, she's in the top 2.

Bell said:
Judy Wood is bat crap crazy. Space beam wtf?
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
If you reference Judy Wood and space beams, then you don't know
Judy Wood or her work.

#1 Her work is primarily about field effects. Field effects are not space beams.
#2 Her detractors (and only her detractors) use the phrase "space beams"
in reference to her work.

She is a serious scientist, and among only a handful of scientists who
do not support the theory of explosive demolition of the WTC. Among this
handful, she's in the top 2.
Click to expand...

Field effects? She still hanging around Hutchinson?

Say, how's the new job? It was in all the papers.
 
WTC Dust said:
If you reference Judy Wood and space beams, then you don't know
Judy Wood or her work.

#1 Her work is primarily about field effects. Field effects are not space beams.
#2 Her detractors (and only her detractors) use the phrase "space beams"
in reference to her work.
Click to expand...

Translation: if you stick a sciency sounding label to a crazy idea rather than a label that makes a crazy idea sound crazy, it becomes true.

She is a serious scientist, and among only a handful of scientists who
do not support the theory of explosive demolition of the WTC. Among this
handful, she's in the top 2.
Click to expand...

Translation: In the loon distribution curve Dr. Wood is situated somewhere beyond 5 sigma.
 
Last edited:
You seem to know more about crazy than you do science.
It's what you keep talking about. Inner demons?

NutCracker said:
Translation: if you stick a sciency sounding label to a crazy idea rather than a label that makes a crazy idea sound crazy, it becomes true.



Translation: In the loon distribution curve Dr. Wood is situated somewhere beyond 5 sigma.
Click to expand...
 
And what's with you posting your replies above the quoted post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom