*
Why conspiracy theorists love Youtube
Mon, 2011-02-07 20:15
#1
Why conspiracy theorists love Youtube
Mon, 2011-02-07 20:21
#2
If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you’ll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you—and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the “evidence” posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can’t understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you’ll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge.
http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/05/28/why-conspiracy-theorists-lo...
Mon, 2011-02-07 21:41
#3
Here's a really good one on Youtube: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_CPa1SHtSs]Democraps give telecoms who spy immunity[/url] 2008
They needed immunity from prosecution for spying on the lives of Americans in order to defend America's "freedom." It's all about freedom to snoop on people. And it's a good thing for Youtube's freedom to host flicks like those of Democracy Now! exposing RepubliCrats for their neofascist ways.
It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you
That's funny they would lump 9/11 truth activists in with Dubya's government sponsored climate science denialism. Apparently FBI and other government whistleblowers, and those government scientists of the 2000s who didn't speak up a lot because very many whistleblowers tend to be fired and smeared and threatened with their pensions, have a lot in common.
And don't forget those other left wing nasties exposing neofascism from time to time, like [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3_ynHjL-M]wikileaks[/url]
It's too late now for the USsA to regain international credibility and prestige at this point. Leaders of the BRIC countries have since concluded that Canada's largest trade benefactors south of us are a thoroughly corrupt and lawless nation since 9/11 and the neofascist attacks on the former Yugoslavia in 1999 and more bombing and marching into sovereign countries following the events of 9/11
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:06
#4
I think most people love YouTube. Also I think most people fall prey to the fallacies listed in the full article. Not really sure this is news.
It's odd that the author makes an implicit defence of the field of economics as "a very complicated science". Yawn/fail.
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:20
#5
According to 18th and 19th century usage, "complicated" equals "dismal."
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:25
#6
Where were these "peer reviewed papers"?
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:25
#7
Muertos: “Casey, I posted 3 scientific rebuttals of the controlled demolition theory. It seems you did not read them, even though you specifically asked us for them.
And there have been at least six peer-reviewed papers written in response to Zdenek Bazant's wacky theory for "pancake" collapse theory. If it wasn't for 1300 independent professionals for truth since then, FEMA and the NIST would probably still be trying to pawn-off the very slip-shod and disproven pancaking theory on the general public. Bazant's and Greening's arguments aren't with 1300+ independent engineers and architects - B&G and the NIST's arguments are with Isaac Newton.
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:43
#8
Where were these "peer reviewed papers"?
[list=1][*] "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction,” by Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, published in 2008 in the Open Civil Engineering Journal.141
[*] “Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials,” by Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones, published in 2009 in The Environmentalist.142
[*] “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” by University of Copenhagen chemistry professor Niels Harrit and eight colleagues (including Jones, Ryan, Legge, and Gourley), published in 2009 in The Open Chemical Physics Journal.143
[*] “Discussion of ‘Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis’ by K.A. Seffen,” by physicist Crockett Grabbe, published in 2010 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, which is published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).144
[*] “Discussion of ’Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions’ by Zdenek P. Bazant and Mathieu Verdure,” by chemical engineer James R. Gourley, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.145
[*] "Discussion of ‘What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York’ by Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson," by Anders Björkman, published in 2010 in the ASCE’s Journal of Engineering Mechanics.[/list]
[url=http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html]400+ Professors Question 9/11[/url]
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:45
#9
And some assorted others.
Your turn, Palmerston.
Mon, 2011-02-07 22:55
#10
And some assorted others.
Your turn, Palmerston.
At least half of these citations are in 9/11 Review or the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the rest seem to be blogs.
Creation scientists have their own journals too.
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:34
#11
Steven Jones and David Griscom have credentials and worked in academia and for the feds. Why are they less credible than a physicist educated in the former USSR whose fallen under the spell of colder warriors, and his pseudocscientific court jester, Frank Greening?
Creation scientists have their own journals too.
Why should we think that a slip-shod report produced by some people working for proven war criminals at the time is beyond reproach? They've spent more time and effort spying on Americans and torturing their version of the truth out of people than actually defending their wacky 9/11 theories. Why not just a do-over like there were subsequent investigations into the Kennedy killing which finally concluded that it probably was a conspiracy, and that the Warren Commissioners were so far out to lunch they missed the truth?
But for god's sake, stop telling everyone that "al-Qaeda" did it. They don't know that. They know nothing as they've already admitted. In fact, they don't want to dig any further because theyre afraid the public will realize that 9/11 was just another Gleiwitz incident, or just another pack of lies like the Gulf of Tonkin incident or anothe Mukden incident, or that Murder Inc. has committed false flag in their black hearts and tiny minds before with plans to hijack passenger planes and blame it on Cubans decades ago. In fact,they are harboring a known terrorist right now with Luis Posada, a known CIA sword agent and mass murderer of 73 Cuban airline passengers.
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:49
#12
These Bentham Open Science journals aren't really peer reviewed.
[url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/]Open Access Journal Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars[/url]
[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peer... paper accepted by journal[/url]
]Would a publisher accept a completely nonsensical manuscript if the authors were willing to pay Open Access publication charges? After being spammed with invitations to publish in Bentham Science journals earlier this year, I decided to find out.Using SCIgen, a software that generates grammatically correct, “context-free” (i.e. nonsensical) papers in computer science, I quickly created an article, complete with figures, tables, and references. It looks pretty professional until you read it. For example:
In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9].
The manuscript, entitled “Deconstructing Access Points” was submitted on January 29th, 2009, to The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ), a journal that claims to enforce peer-review.
The manuscript was given two co-authors, David Phillips and Andrew Kent. Any similarity to real or fictitious, living or dead academics is purely coincidental, as was their institutional affiliation: The Center for Research in Applied Phrenology based in Ithaca, New York. If the acronym didn’t reveal the farce right away, phrenology is the pseudoscience of reading personality traits from the lumps on one’s head.
Bentham confirmed receipt of my submission the very next day (January 30, 2009). Nearly four months later, I received a response — the article was accepted. The acceptance letter read:
This is to inform you that your submitted article has been accepted for publication after peer-reviewing process in TOISCIJ. I would be highly grateful to you if you please fill and sign the attached fee form and covering letter and send them back via email as soon as possible to avoid further delay in publication.
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:52
#13
At least half of these citations are in 9/11 Review or the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the rest seem to be blogs.
AETruth, where that list is posted, has over 1400 signatories to its statement. The theses it defends are articulated in the papers it cites. That is peer review.
But where are your peer-reviewed papers? The ones defending the current Bazant/NIST hypothesis of the WTC collapses? I asked the question here but no one seems to want to answer it. Do you not have any?
Tue, 2011-02-08 00:42
#14
AETruth, where that list is posted, has over 1400 signatories to its statement. The theses it defends are articulated in the papers it cites. That is peer review.
That's an absurd statement, but I think you really care more about the second part of your post.
But where are your peer-reviewed papers? The ones defending the current Bazant/NIST hypothesis of the WTC collapses? I asked the question here but no one seems to want to answer it. Do you not have any?
This is the original Bazant piece. It is certainly worth citing, even if Steven Jones et. al. claim to have "debunked" it. You make it sound as if the engineering journals are obligated to respond to the "truthers."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Here's some more:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I%20Engi...
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
Tue, 2011-02-08 01:58
#15
You make it sound as if the engineering journals are obligated to respond to the "truthers."
You make it sound as though engineering journals have refused to publish 9/11 truth.
JEM and other peer-reviewed journals have published 9/11 truth. Why? Because Bazant and Greening have peers who questioned not only Bazant's wacky pancake theory, they've also doubted his subsequent crackpot theory for "crush-down crush-up" pseudoscientific baloney.
'Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC 1,2,7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything?'
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCLHL5iToJ8][color=blue]9/11 Truth: MIT Structural Engineer Jeff King Explains WTC Controlled Demolition[/color](YouTube)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jAS4Zk059w][color=blue]Jeff King on WTC Controlled Demolitions Part II[/color](YouTube)[/url]
Tue, 2011-02-08 07:19
#16
These Bentham Open Science journals aren't really peer reviewed.
[url=http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/]Open Access Journal Accepts Nonsense Manuscript for Dollars[/url]
So they, Bentham Open, never did publish his computer generated manuscript. His only claim is that he almost fooled them.
He says they wanted some cash before doing anything for him. But then he chickened out and says, Oh, they would have had he not put an end to his own hoax.
And he admits to being deliberately deceptive. He's a prankster, a falsifier and obfuscator of truth himself, in fact.
And this trickster is attempting to smear other people as frauds?
Another case of false flag for sure.
Tue, 2011-02-08 08:06
#17
That's an absurd statement, but I think you really care more about the second part of your post.
What's "absurd" about it?
This is the original Bazant piece. It is certainly worth citing, even if Steven Jones et. al. claim to have "debunked" it. You make it sound as if the engineering journals are obligated to respond to the "truthers."http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
Here's some more:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/distribution/PapersChron/WTC_I%20Engi...
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
That's weird. West Coast Greeny talked about "countless peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals" and a "huge, overwhelming majority opinion of architects, engineers, and scientists". But all you found is four papers, two of them by Bazant himself, another one commissioned by NIST and the fourth one, Eagar, published in 2002, not possibly a comment of any kind on the NIST collapse hypothesis and Bazant's "crush down, crush up" theory.
So I guess you have zero. And yet you feel, as an amateur, somehow qualified to pass judgment on the opinions of over 1400 architecture and engineering professionals. I guess this shouldn't surprise me, since you also subscribe to the theories of fake psychiatrist Stephen Barrett.
Tue, 2011-02-08 08:38
#18
It is well established that the individuals we speak of and the system which drives them are capable of absolutely anything. This fact has moved far beyond theory to the point that nothing should come as a shock in its revelation anymore. They've done enough already to convince us of things previously thought of as unimaginable.
Tue, 2011-02-08 11:41
#19
Snert
So they, Bentham Open, never did publish his computer generated manuscript. His only claim is that he almost fooled them.
He voluntarily withdrew the computer-generated paper.
So sorry, but he totally fooled them. That, or they knew the paper was randomly-generated nonsense, but really wanted the fees.
They got busted. They're a sham. A wise man would walk away at that point.
Tue, 2011-02-08 11:43
#20
Snert
It is well established that the individuals we speak of and the system which drives them are capable of absolutely anything.
Ah. The old belief in the omnipotence of the shadowy enemy. Carry on.
Tue, 2011-02-08 11:54
#21
Ah. The old belief in the omnipotence of the shadowy enemy. Carry on.
There's nothing omnipotent or shadowy about any of it. They know only of that which informs their selfish impulses, with more than enough of it being placed on display quite openly everywhere, at least enough to convince anyone with even half a mind with which to do their own evidence based thinking. Which begs the question of how on earth do you manage to get by day after day?
Tue, 2011-02-08 12:11
#22
Snert
Ah. The assertion that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the conspiracy du jour is hopelessly self-deluded, naive, or brainwashed. Continue. Next up: accusations of 'working for the man'.
Tue, 2011-02-08 12:21
#23
There's no need to keep up with the latest documentary compilations of the theoreticians, when observing the existing evident should suffice.
Tue, 2011-02-08 12:26
#24
Back to the OP - its main thesis, that Youtube is a sanctuary for crackpots everywhere, is hardly newsworthy. Rather like saying Facebook encourages procrastination.
Tue, 2011-02-08 12:39
#25
Or that news media like to use television.
Agreed. Silly topic, and is obviously intended mainly to bait.
I move this thread be closed.
Tue, 2011-02-08 15:25
#26
And it wouldn't surprise me if there are far more "scientific" papers "debunking the official 9/11 story" than there are papers published in serious journals that explain how the WTC buildings collapsed. So what?
The fact that scientific "journals" exist solely for the purpose of "proving" that "9/11 was an inside job" speaks volumes.
Tue, 2011-02-08 15:45
#27
That's weird. West Coast Greeny talked about "countless peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals" and a "huge, overwhelming majority opinion of architects, engineers, and scientists". But all you found is four papers, two of them by Bazant himself, another one commissioned by NIST and the fourth one, Eagar, published in 2002, not possibly a comment of any kind on the NIST collapse hypothesis and Bazant's "crush down, crush up" theory.So I guess you have zero. And yet you feel, as an amateur, somehow qualified to pass judgment on the opinions of over 1400 architecture and engineering professionals. I guess this shouldn't surprise me, since you also subscribe to the theories of fake psychiatrist Stephen Barrett.
It's amusing how you think that I have to explain for WCG's post one year ago.
What's absurd is your claim that what's on the "1400 Engineers for truth" (or whatever) site constitutes "peer review" but these papers do not because they were written in 2002 or written by someone you don't like.
But if you want them not to count, fine. I'll accept your challenge to find more papers. On the condition that nothing from 9/11 Review or the Journal of 9/11 Studies or the Bentham Open Journals (i.e. "pay to publish") counts, and that you withdraw your absolutely idiotic claim that these papers endorsed by 1400 "AE for Truth" constitutes "peer review"!
ETA: Why do I think your claim that these 1400 AE's constitutes peer review is absurd? Because these people have already decided as a group that the 9/11 "official story" was a hoax. So of course they're already assuming this to be the case, and look for papers to suit their agenda.
Nor do we know what the involvement of these 1400 in the scrutinizing of these papers. Or what their specific specialties are.
Tue, 2011-02-08 15:48
#28
Next up there will be some trickster claiming JEM is a fraudulent engineering journal funded by the Kremlin for having published 9/11 truth. And after his own computer generated essay is rejected, he will claim they almost took him seriously.
I think they should start up their own super-duper exclusive engineering journal where government lackies like Bazant can feel safe in knowing that their pseudoscientific theories can never be challenged by their peers working independently of US Government influence.
Tue, 2011-02-08 16:06
#29
It's amusing how you think that I have to explain for WCG's post one year ago.
WCG's post was from three days ago.
What's absurd is your claim that what's on the "1400 Engineers for truth" (or whatever) site constitutes "peer review" but these papers do not because they were written in 2002 or written by someone you don't like.
I'm not saying they're not peer-reviewed. I'm saying that they are not outside corroboration of the Bazant/NIST collapse hypothesis. That is what I was asking for. Where is your scientific "consensus" on the WTC collapses?
I would like nothing more than the subscribers of JEM to actually read what Bazant proposes about the WTC collapses. It would help 9/11 Truth immensely. I'm pretty sure most of them haven't. The ones who have join AE Truth.
I'll accept your challenge to find more papers.
All righty, pardner. See you in a more appropriately titled thread.
Tue, 2011-02-08 16:17
#30
[url=http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-23/911-experiments-newton-vs-nist][co... Experiments: Newton vs the NIST[/color](YouTube)[/url] uniform acceleration = less weight, deceleration = amplification of force
Tue, 2011-02-08 17:04
#31
Catchfire
I fail to see the value of this thread. Closing.