Troofers Now Faking Evidence

A thought:

Isn't there a branch of linguistics that can analyze two documents for word usage, sentence structure, common errors, etc., and determine if they were written by the same person?

Wouldn't it be humiliating to Dylan Avery if it could be scientifically proven that this email was written by Dylan Avery himself, or by one of his confederates? Surely these guys have made enough internet posts that a baseline for comparison exists.
 
PD'oh said:
The email originates from new jersey. Ill be honest, it sounds almost too good to be true but he does mention the pressure to keep quiet.
Click to expand...

"It looks like a fake, but it contains a lie that I like, so I'll just assume it's true."

Im honoured that debating me was your first choice over having a life.
Click to expand...

This from D'oh ? Amazing.

Marky you are a proven liar. You have linked me to pictures of smoke.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. The smoke must come from smoke generators.

In answer to your question, I wasnt standing near builing seven, there may well have been flashes, bangs and squibs
Click to expand...

Ah, well that proves it, then.

How have you ruled out flashes and squibs? Lets see your proof there were none.
Click to expand...

It's good to see that science education is still alive and well in North America.
 
I just wonder how blatently gullible the troofers are. I have a proposal:

Here, on JREF, we will create a fictional account of something that happened on 9/11 that appears to support a CT story. We can do this on a public thread, with no pretense of anything other than fiction. Then we get someone with access to CT fora to post the resulting story as "here is a story that I have seen" (without lying about anything, except in omission), and we wait to see how many of them accept it.

Even with a public record of where we made it all up, I bet there will be those who will fall for it.
 
pgwenthold said:
I just wonder how blatently gullible the troofers are. I have a proposal:

Here, on JREF, we will create a fictional account of something that happened on 9/11 that appears to support a CT story. We can do this on a public thread, with no pretense of anything other than fiction. Then we get someone with access to CT fora to post the resulting story as "here is a story that I have seen" (without lying about anything, except in omission), and we wait to see how many of them accept it.

Even with a public record of where we made it all up, I bet there will be those who will fall for it.
Click to expand...
i doubt it, most of them watch this board more than than they claim the NWO watches theirs
 
Prisonplanet.com catches the frenzy:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm

They make some claims that must have been debunked a trillion years ago. The same old stupid pull-theories, then this Silverstein profit:

"In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million."

Their math is really wrong. I remember seeing the actual numbers around here somewhere.

EDIT: Found the numbers from a Gravy post.
 
Last edited:
"It's so obvious"

Now, where have you seen that phrase before ?
 
MarkyX said:
Why does Dylan want us, aka me, apologize to him? I didn't ask for him to email me or even watch the video.

All I ask is for some proof. An anonymous email telling me a story that no one else agrees with, not even the First Responders that believe 9/11 was an inside job mention, does not require an apology from me.

As I said before, it seems to be a PR stunt.
Click to expand...

Ok I sent the letter.

We all sent the letter.

In some sense we are the letter.
 
Triterope said:
A thought:

Isn't there a branch of linguistics that can analyze two documents for word usage, sentence structure, common errors, etc., and determine if they were written by the same person?
Click to expand...
They're not exactly conclusive, but if you want to experiment, Google for "text analysis" to find some tools.
 
Triterope said:
A thought:

Isn't there a branch of linguistics that can analyze two documents for word usage, sentence structure, common errors, etc., and determine if they were written by the same person?
Click to expand...

Another set of terms you can try searching on are "statistical stylometry" or just "stylometry".

IIRC, these methods- comparing things like sentence length, word length, punctuation, word frequencies and so on- were used in discovering the identity of the anonymous author of the novel "Primary Colors".

Trouble is, you need some pretty big samples- both for the questioned document and the reference sample- to get really meaningful results. Obtaining a nice big corpus of authentic Dylan-speak from the 'net is likely possible, but a single email doesn't make for much of a questioned sample.

Still, there are some tools available on the 'net and it can be fun and educational to experiment with them.
 
MikeW said:
They're not exactly conclusive, but if you want to experiment, Google for "text analysis" to find some tools.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip (and also to ktesibios for the additional information). Maybe I'll take a whack at it over the weekend.
 
Liars Chew Off Three Legs-Still Caught in the Trap

=Totovader;2324807]On the issue of the claim that WTC7 was "pulled" and counted down on the bullhorn and all that- obviously a ridiculous claim, but isn't it possible to show that it's an outright lie? We have footage (Naudet, I believe) that is taken right next to a group of firefighters as 7 is falling. There is no countdown, there is no bullhorn. In fact, the firefighters are mildly surprised that it's falling- meaning the collapse was expected, but it was not known exactly when it was going to happen.

I hate to just reject claims out of inconsistency or contradiction with known facts- I like to show them undeniably that they're dead wrong...
Click to expand...

After you've shown them that they're dead wrong, guess what? They still don't care.
The beauty of their position is that it prevents them from ever learning anything. An observer might remark that it would take another attack by the jihadists to open the fantasists' eyes. That misses the point. Ten more attacks couldn't do it. Years after Bush has retired to his ranch and Cheney is dead, any terrorist attack will continue to be the work of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Over time, it will grow less and less clear who exactly is in the conspiracy and what its motives might be, but the central myth will remain unshaken.

The line about the guy with the bullhorn warning that the building is going to be "pulled" exposes the deception. The conspiracy liars have set a trap for themselves with their insane insistence that Larry Silverstein's suggestion that the contingent of firefighters be pulled from the unstable building somehow meant that he wanted the Fire Department (!) to blow up his own building. (And, no, they aren't fazed by the fact that the Fire Department is not in the business of blowing up buildings.) Their inability to find anyone in the demolition industry who recognizes the use of "pull" as synonymous with "blow up" drives them to increasingly silly fabrications. The liars are forced to pretend that real people use an expression that they themselves invented. The results are truly strange.
 
pomeroo said:
After you've shown them that they're dead wrong, guess what? They still don't care.
The beauty of their position is that it prevents them from ever learning anything. An observer might remark that it would take another attack by the jihadists to open the fantasists' eyes. That misses the point. Ten more attacks couldn't do it. Years after Bush has retired to his ranch and Cheney is dead, any terrorist attack will continue to be the work of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Over time, it will grow less and less clear who exactly is in the conspiracy and what its motives might be, but the central myth will remain unshaken.

The line about the guy with the bullhorn warning that the building is going to be "pulled" exposes the deception. The conspiracy liars have set a trap for themselves with their insane insistence that Larry Silverstein's suggestion that the contingent of firefighters be pulled from the unstable building somehow meant that he wanted the Fire Department (!) to blow up his own building. (And, no, they aren't fazed by the fact that the Fire Department is not in the business of blowing up buildings.) Their inability to find anyone in the demolition industry who recognizes the use of "pull" as synonymous with "blow up" drives them to increasingly silly fabrications. The liars are forced to pretend that real people use an expression that they themselves invented. The results are truly strange.
Click to expand...

Yes, to think that the fire department would confirm their backwards usage of the term despite the rest of the profession disagreeing with them might have driven them past the point of restraint, here.

I've always wondered why Alex Jones would resort to such silly claims- but his tactic is pretty slick. He rambles off these things quickly, and without any sort of argumentation as to what lead him to these conclusions- it just is. Then, later- if something is called into question, it's just a link or another rambling to move past it.

Alex Jones appeals to a lot of people- and that scares me.
 
Totovader said:
I've always wondered why Alex Jones would resort to such silly claims- but his tactic is pretty slick. He rambles off these things quickly, and without any sort of argumentation as to what lead him to these conclusions- it just is. Then, later- if something is called into question, it's just a link or another rambling to move past it.Alex Jones appeals to a lot of people- and that scares me.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones thrives on silly claims, because that is all he has. Just nonsense piled upon BS piled upon horsepucky piled upon lies piled upon prevarication piled upon more nonsense. Without that, he would have to get a real job in a legitimate field. He, like most fraud artists, knows his target audience well, and he plays to their weaknesses.

He only appeals to conspiracy fantasists and those predisposed to mental illness, though, so that's some consolation.
 
Last edited:
Since blogger, prison planet, and loose change plan on using this email to attack me

The email is topgun85@comcast.net

There you go fellow debunkers and 9/11 denier lurkers.
 
Last edited:
Would anyone like, or be able, to pop over to LC and post a brief message? It only needs three words - "Remember Lauro Chavez?"
 
Join Date: 09-25-2004
Posts
Total Posts: 0 (0 posts per day)
Find all posts by Topgun85
Find all threads started by Topgun85

Topgun85 has no contact information.
Additional Information Group Memberships
Date of Birth:
July 8, 1982
Age:
24
Years in the Emergency Service:
Frequent Visitor
 
so then if this fellow is the same "topgun85" that wrote the letter to MarkyX and Dylan Avery, then at that time, he was 18, probably in his last year of high school or first year of technical college or equivalent (which is what EMT's have to do to become certified) and he was therefore not an EMT from Jersey at the time. But that's only if this was the same "topgun85"
 
The Silver Shadow said:
so then if this fellow is the same "topgun85" that wrote the letter to MarkyX and Dylan Avery, then at that time, he was 18, probably in his last year of high school or first year of technical college or equivalent (which is what EMT's have to do to become certified) and he was therefore not an EMT from Jersey at the time. But that's only if this was the same "topgun85"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it works up in Jersey, But I became an EMT while in high school at the age of 16. I seem to recall Firecoins becoming an EMT at an early age in NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom