Skeptic Project

So I’ve been carrying on my debate with the craigslist Truther, George, and acquitting myself quit well for someone new to the biz, but I posted my last reply and my post got flagged. I spent hours constructing this post and researching links, and they don’t like what I post so those truther douche nozzles go and flag my hard work because I was kicking their ass.

Fuck craigslist in its stupid ass and fuck truthers, they can go eat a bag of dicks.

So I’m posting my response here because I feel like I have the mental version of blue balls.

And because I know it seems like you are all getting into a conversation halfway through, here is a link to the last post George made.

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/pol/2159727773.html</p>

And the politics forum:

http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/pol/</p>

Quotes are George.

The gaps in your logic are so numerous I could be at this for hours. The basic failure with your argument is that you don't have one. You merely attack my position using a a string of guesses and suppositions, but you have no real evidence. Here are a few points.

For anyone who would like to read about typical truther behaviour, read that link I posted by Mark Roberts, he details a couple of debates he has had with prominent truthers like Alex Jones and although George uses more sophisticated language but he repeats many of the same habits. Ignores evidence, moves goal posts, repeats the same debunked points over an over again, quote mining.

FIRST—Where there's smoke there's no fire
It is a fact of thermodynamics that black smoke is sign of poor ventilation and low heat, yet you insist that this smoke denotes heat strong enough to bring the towers down because it could have consumed plastics and other materials. It doesn't matter that FEMA doesn't mention it, and your asking me for proof is time wasting. Ask a high-school science teacher. .

It doesn’t matter that the FEMA article YOU posted and referenced doesn’t mention that black smoke means oxygen starved fires? Why use a reference if the reference doesn’t support your point? Why doesn’t FEMA make that conclusion that you think is so obvious? I will outline it in the next paragraph.

Take a plastic pen, light the end of it on fire, what shade is the smoke you observe? It would be black. You can do this experiment yourself at little cost. Plastic is made of hydrocarbons; it is the carbon content that makes the smoke black. I have provided photographic evidence of this effect of plastic burning in an open field.

The point is that you have two possible causes of black smoke you cannot, without more evidence, make a determination for one cause over another. This is why the FEMA article didn’t mention it, because black smoke is inconclusive. And you say I have gaps in my logic?

Also you have no idea what is on the floors of the buildings. yet you are able to ASSUMME that there's enough plastic etc. for a major fire. I present evidence and you present denials. I also said most of the jet fuel dissipated into the air after impact. How does that fit with your theory of a towering inferno? .

Do you work in an office George? I do. There are plenty of sources of plastic in an office, computers, garbage bins, plastic bags, photocopiers, fax machines, phones, adding machines, inboxes, chairs, flower pots, plastic flowers, water pipes, wall partitions, ceilings and carpets which commonly use polypropylene. And this is just standard office supplies.

You are characterizing my denials as baseless. But all my denials have evidence backing them up, photographic, scientific and eye witness.

Yes you said the jet fuel dissipated, so are you saying that no secondary fires resulted? Also where did I say “towering inferno”? Can you point to it? This is another truther tactic, putting words in your opponent’s mouth.

I also said the explosions in Tower II occurred BEFORE the plane touched it. I've seen the live frame-by-frame video footage from ABC. In short, you provide nothing by way of evidence or believable scientific argument. .

Post the link; this is the point of debating in a forum. Bring your evidence to your opponent to view. There are countless videos of the plane impact, which one are you looking at? Each one I look at, I see the explosion happen when the nose of the plane hits the building. This is also part of the scientific method; we each review the same evidence and see if we can arrive at the same conclusion. If not, why not?

SECOND—integrity
So what? Windows can be blown out and the walls can stay intact. Your answer is just a reflex; it's not researched. .

So what? That is all you have to say? My answer is just a reflex? You have been dismissive of the plane strike from the beginning; I can only assume you think that it did no damage and could not possibly compromise the structural integrity of the building. This is ludicrous. Why do I bother arguing with you when you cannot see that flinging a 200 ton object at 490mph-590mph at a stationary object will result in massive structural damage? This is cognitive blocking at its finest. This is totally irrational.

Here's another excerpt from Greg Felton's book "The Host and the Parasite—How Israel's Fifth Column Consumed America," which also address the fate of WTC7:

One of the most peculiar events of September 11 is the collapse of WTC7, about which the commission said nothing. At 4:10 p.m. the building was reported on fire; 70 minutes later it was “pulled” (deliberately imploded). In the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds," Larry Silverstein, the real-estate magnate who owned the building, explains why he gave the go-ahead: “I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said: ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. [11] .

Well at least he got Silverstein’s quote right. Except from the quote you can see it wasn’t Silverstein giving the go ahead for anything. “And THEY made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.” It was the fire department that made the decision to pull back from WTC7 as they knew it was unstable for hours before it collapsed. The call was a courtesy call; the New York Fire Department doesn’t take orders from Silverstein. If anything Silverstein was just agreeing with what the Fire Department was going to do. Even if he didn’t agree the Fire Department would have done it anyway.

Silverstein’s admission directly contradicts the official explanation…” .

Silverstein didn’t admit to anything, you are deriving the meaning you want out of what he said and not actually looking at what he said. WTC7 failed, it wasn’t demolished. The fire department pulled its people out of there and waited for it to collapse, something they knew was coming hours before it happened.

British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments….

In these experiments, did they rain down tons of debris on this experimental building? Was the structure compromised in any way by mechanically inflicted force? This experiment is not comparable. It only proves under perfect test conditions that an 8 storey building with unprotected secondary (not primary) steel beams no collapse occurred. I would like to review the details of the British Steel experiment, but I cannot find the experiment in which they did tested in an 8 storey building. I can only find the experiment in which the tested in a large room. If you have the link I would review it. In the study I did find it was important to note on page 17, point 14:

It is now recognized that the limiting temperature at which a structural member loses its load carrying capacity is dependent on the level of the load, the stress distribution and the arrangement of any protection. A series of limiting section factors for unprotected beams and columns has been determined for a range of limiting temperatures from 500C to 750C. The data are directly applicable to the real heating conditions from fires within a certain designs of buildings where the area of ventilation is comparatively large.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/Cardington_BehaviourStructuralSteelwork97.pdf</p>

So I am curious how British Steel could have a similar experiment where unprotected steel was heated to 800C to 900C, what exactly was the shape the secondary beams in? Did they show evidence of bowing or deflection? Just what kind of load were they bearing? How does that compare to the loads the steel beams were bearing in WTC7?

Even though debris from WTC1 did cause fires in WTC7 they were minor and localized. FEMA cites no evidence that they reached sufficient intensity to compromise structural integrity. [14] Nevertheless, the only action taken regarding WTC7 was to demolish it after the first report of fire. The commission made no attempt to explain this bizarre decision, challenge FEMA’s findings, or question the absurd idea that a 47-story building could be rigged for implosion within a mere 70 minutes. The only possible explanation for the collapse of WTC7, therefore, is that it was prerigged with explosives. [15] .

So the tons of debris raining down on WTC7 was sufficient to start fires, but not sufficient to compromise structurally integrity of the building, although in pictures of WTC7 that I have provided you could see clear gaping holes in the side of the building?

There was no decision to demolish WTC7, the decision was to cease fighting the fires and let the building collapse.

So again I say a controlled demolition is not the only possible explanation, it is not even a likely explanation.

Since we can say with absolute certainty that WTC7 was deliberately imploded:… .

You cannot say with absolute certainty that WTC7 was deliberately imploded. Since you cannot establish that beyond a reasonable doubt you cannot impute anything to the nature of the WTC1 & 2 collapses. And the copious eye witness testimony given by fire fighters and police officers supports the OS that WTC7 was severely damaged by falling debris and was unstable for hours before the collapse. I refer you to the Mark Roberts article I posted as it contains pages of quotes from eyewitness who were present at WTC7.

THIRD—the 1975 fire
For my money the Feb 1975 fire in Tower 1 proves the lie of the official narrative. You, though, claim that it benefited from asbestos insulation which only went to the 38th floor. Wrong. Asbestos went to the 64th Floor: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html) Since the preceding quote proves that the aircraft were NON-CAUSAL factors in the WTC collapse, I must reject your conclusion against demolition being the only possible cause. .

In WTC 1, structural elements up to the 39th floor were originally protected from fire with a spray applied product containing asbestos (Nicholson, et al. 1980).

Full Reference:

New York Board of Fire Underwriters. 1975. One World Trade Center Fire, February 13, 1975. Nicholson, W. J.; Rohl, A. N.; Wesiman, I.; and Seltkoff, I.J. 1980. Environmental Asbestos Concentrations in the United States, page 823. Environmental Sciences Laboratory, Mount Zion Hospital, New York, NY.

I wonder why you’d use that fox news link when it says in a few paragraphs down:

Levine’s company, Asbestospray, was familiar with the World Trade Center construction, but failed to get the contract for spraying insulation in the World Trade Center. Levine frequently would say that "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

This seems article seems to support that if a fire broke out the building would collapse. So I question your use of it since is seems to run contrary to what you were saying.

And explain to me how the “preceding quote” proves that the aircraft were non-causal factors in the WTC collapse? WTC1 was hit between floors 94 and 98, even if we accept the fox news link as true, the asbestos fireproofing stops at the 64th .

FOURTH--Cognitive dissonance
I cited Dr. Steven Jones to show that thermite was used in the demolitions and you responded: "Neither of us are demolitions experts. I do have a science degree so I have an understanding of how the scientific method and peer review is supposed to work."
This is sheer cowardice and cognitive denial. You don't like Jones's findings so you feign ignorance. You have no right to do this. Either refute him or accept his conclusions. I consider this response proof that you don't know what you're talking about. .

Another truther tactic, ascribe a certain character to my responses then claim “proof/ victory”.

Mine is a legitimate question. Steven E Jones creates a journal and then calls it peer-reviewed. It would be no different if I created a journal and then only invited like minds to sit on the board to submit articles and review articles that my like-minded friends have submitted. It is a perversion of the peer review process. Cognitive denial is thinking that the Journal of 911 Studies is a legitimate journal of any scientific integrity. Show me an article that was published in a real, recognized scientific journal and I will give it due consideration. When it comes to the scientific method and what it means to have a peer reviewed publication, you, sir, don’t know what you are talking about.

FOURTH--Pentagon
This will be my last comment, even though I could reply to others, since this post is already far too long.
You statements about the Pentagon are similarly non-cognitive. You have NO EVIDENCE to refute the lack of a jet aircraft so you parrot the official line. Again, you did no research, have done no investigations, and merely parrot what you want to believe. .

Hey did you repeat a number? Do you mean Fifth?

Do I parrot the photographs that show evidence of the jet aircraft at the pentagon that you say doesn’t exist? Just because it isn’t the evidence you expect or would like to see doesn’t discount it as evidence of aircraft parts found in and around the pentagon.

The following link is a good summary of the official fraud.
(http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/01/02/pentagon-transcripts-official-records-belie-the-911-commission-report) .

Hey thanks for the tidbit about McIntyre. It answers my question if anyone had followed up on his comments and he himself said he was taken out of context. From your above link:

This news report apparently was not rebroadcast, and a few years later McIntyre claimed on CNN (Wolf Blitzer’s show) that he had been taken out of context.

Here is another one from McIntyre himself:

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I — myself — appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/index.html</p>

Photographs supporting the large plane hit the Pentagon analysis. The first one includes insightful comments by Michael Rivero:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html?q=ppfinal.html

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html</p>

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1</p>

757 aerobatics:

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html</p>

Eyewitnesses that saw a large plane near the Pentagon and hit the Pentagon:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html</p>

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html</p>

However, your last paragraph tells me everything I need to know about you: "I don’t find it plausible that the government willfully destroyed its own people in such a flagrant display when a lesser event could have served the same purpose." This is a non-rational statement. No matter how compelling the evidence that the U.S. DID destroy its own people, your comfort zone would not allow you to face it. This is why your arguments are so weak, unscientific and dishonest. .

You are exceptional at making snap judgments about people, I’ll give you that. I think your labels of weak, unscientific and dishonest apply wonderfully to your own arguments as you don’t understand the scientific method and you don’t know what constitutes a peer review process. You disregard evidence of the very sources you put up, or you put up sources that actually contradict your position.

You have no smoking gun. If you did people would be rioting in the streets and the government would be overthrown. The evidence doesn’t support a government sponsored false flag event, if that was so, where is your insider to shed light on this far reaching conspiracy? It’s been 9 years and you’ve nothing conclusive.

I don’t have a comfort zone, George, I fully believe that people are capable of doing terrible things, and so are governments, when they can get away with it, for as little motivation as profit. The US is incapable of pulling this off. If Julian Assange can release hundreds of thousands of top secret documents from the US, why is it that not one internal 911-related document got leaked out? The 911 tragedy parallel’s the JFK assassination and the Pearl Harbor attack as the most important events in recent US history, the incentive to blow this thing open is enormous. So why is it only simmering?

By these words you have just admitted that you are mentally and emotionally incapable of rational discussion on this matter. Greg Felton IS capable and he has a unique and compelling explanation for why the U.S. deliberately staged an attack on its own people and blamed Muslims for it. Just because you can't believe it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Read his book and then get back to me. As it is now, I have nothing more to say to you. .

I have put Greg Felton’s book on order with my local library.

As for rational conversation it is you that disregards the plane strikes as a contributing factor in damaging the structural integrity of the buildings. I wonder if it was a tomahawk cruise missile hitting WTC1 if we’d be having this argument. You can drop the truther tactic by trying to label me mentally and emotional incapable as we both know that is not true. It explains much how you debate other topics, employing straw men, twisting words, massaging the evidence to fit your story, putting words in other peoples mouths, repeating the same line of debunked nonsense until your opponent gives up in disgust.

We are not finished George. I’ll read the book you so highly prize, just so I can better debunk you in the future. Because you’ll notice I have better luck using your own sources to discredit you than by using my own, because everyone assumes you’ve read your sources (which you obviously haven’t) and I know you don’t even look at mine.

That truther douchebag and his minions are flagging off all my comments on craigslist and saying that I publically admitted I could not face facts.

Which is easy for him to say because he has erased what I said and can make up whatever story he wants to fit his facts.

I invited him to come here and continue our debate. I hope he'll be man enough to show, and I hope you'll allow hime to register.

Whoa whoa, slow down Muertos! At least there was some historical significance with the Titanic. TZM is more like a deflated pair of water wings. You don't want to go down with the water wings do you TeeZedem?

I'm going to stay until they punt me. In the tradition of domokato and CJ. Joe for example keeps bringing up Technocracy as an alternate and I agree that Technocracy is probably just as good as what Jacques Fresco advocates. Why I'm backing TZM and TVP over all others simply comes down to they've got a wide reaching organization, many countries, many languages, and most fledging movements (like EMS and Technocracy) are primarily focused in a couple of countries and mostly in english.

And say what you will about PJ and his prior films, he knows how to make something that grips a viewer. I did watch his latest documentary and it has gotten more sophisticated and polished over his other two. True, he has Ruppert on, but he has heavied up on real professors and Phd's. The theatre it was showing at was a packed house and I don't think anyone left there quite the same. It speaks with authority and is convincing, whether it actually has legs and can stand, I have to be honest and say I cannot objectively judge that so I leave it to others more skeptical. All I can say is the following: 1) it won't be an easy time to debunk it, for example even though he used Ruppert, they didn't veer into conspiracy territory, they stuck to the theory that the system is corrupt not people, no 911, no illumati, not even international bankers. 2) This new documentary is going to result in a groundswell of new zeitgeisters. And they'll likely start off like I did, coming here to set you straight and make you into friends, which I think lasted only a couple of days before I gave up. So batten down the hatches.

But I've come to hate 911 truth and no one is going to make me parrot that nonsense. And I'm not going to sit quietly while others discuss it on my forums. If that gets me booted, fine. But someone has to be the voice of rationality.

It other news, that asshat on craigslist posted a 12 frame picture "proving" that explosions happened before a plane struck tower 2. I am astounded at how stupid this guy is. It took me five minutes on youtube to match up a video with those frames that shows clearly the explosion happenign because plane struck, not before. How ever put these frames together just left out the frames showing the plane. I posted the link on craigslist just to rub it in on how retarded the truther is, even if he is going to flag it with his truther buddies.

Well if it is primarily about the system being corrupt then it isn't a conspiracy film really. As alot of people criticise and disagree with how government is run without resorting to bullstinky conspiracies. But it seems Peter Merola is probably trying to bring in a different type of person to his movement, as opposed to fringe conspiracy nuts and 9/11 truthers.

I mean with the new movie, I'm not saying he doesn't still believe in that crap, but that he is trying to make TZM more palatable to the average person by focusing on the way government and society operates which alot of people disagree with (not just batstinky insane CT'ers) and not going on about delusional fantasies like the NWO, Illuminati and international bankers. Thats not to say his film has any truth to it of course.

@TeeZedem sounds like the complete opposite from what I've heard. At that why are you trying to " fake identify" with us so bad. I see you leaping leaps and bounds to jump over that line to identify with us, before you have to absorb yourself back Into the TZM cult. I feel your intentions are a bit obvious. We don't know who you are on the TZm forums and to us your just some dude with the annoying name that sounds like TZM but spelled phonetically.

I think it's safe to assume your here to promote the movie which is whatever at that don't try to hard bud. If we watch it we watch if we don't we don't. If the movie has no conspiracy theories in it it won't get watched no worries that you will promote/mass market it still but simply put it won't get as many views. At that the Zeitgeist Movement as you would say is "new" and Peter thinks is movements number will Quadtriple fold and this is the same guy that thinks he has a chance at the academy awards.

I haven't watched the movie yet but I'll take a stab at maybe what peter has in it, he'll probably try to indeitfy with us yes "US" meaning the outside society, and use EXPERTS who lean to his thinking. At that he may use such things as open source, OSE, linux, open opera, or rep rap etc..., to try to win a new cohort over to his side as he sees the value in having developers who will work for free possibly. You're probably going to have a a lot of things on crime and Peter is going to of course state the doom and gloom of it and you'll begin to see the obvious bias in his artsy music and tone of the individuals voice. As well as again one side or worse 1/16 of the side of the story and some how that is the answer his answer, Peter's answer but that rhetoric will be echoed by cult members as "the answer".

When you say the Zeitgeist Movement is a global movement, I have to say the Christian religion is a global movement so why are you not in that? The TZM movement has been gearing up towards Peter's movie and ironically you talk about the countries it spreads to which I'm making a sort of a blog about that so I won't say to much about that. I beleive I heard talk within rbose somewhere about how in TZM darkdancer refused to update the Zeitgeistmovement.com website that someone would upgrade free of charge unless it was assured that it would come out BEFORE PETER's MOVIE. Yet peter's movies are not the movement. Again The translation team of the TZm cult is purely a dedicated force to translate Peter's movies into the languages it needs done free of charge. From what i understand Peter put the translation team on a tight dead line. Yet the movies re not the movement.

I understand this TeeZeedumb and I just find it silly. It's a joke simply put, it's associated with a murder, it has cult like tendency that will revolutionize how one can be isolated and brainwashed over the internet I must admit. I am working on a big ass blog it should cover some aspect of this more in depth all in do time.

At that ok so your arguing to some dude about 9/11 good for you congratulation your one of us (whatever that might be) so now what?

His movie I can assume is trying to appeal to new and unsuspecting cohorts in general and I can imagine the levels of sophistication he's trying to implement into his movies including those nice water mark seal easily identifiable by peter on a per country bases. At least that's what I heard.

At that the question is is Zeitgeist Movement moving forward or backwards? With going from a free developers team to a paid developers team, or the fact they have global moderation. How can the action that they deem wrong yet are doing themselves lead to a greater good?

Will I watch it? The answer will be well I won't go out of my way to watch it if I watch it I watch it if not I won't; it is what it is in my eyes and that is Peter's conspiracy cult movement movie.

When someone starts off trying to convince me of something by saying they will "set me straight", or calling me "mentally ill" or a "poop throwing monkey", I generally will not listen until I am treated with more respect. I think this is one of TZM's biggest problems (and their other biggest problem, in my eyes, is their rejection of charity and community service). If Z3 has more legs, better sources, more experts, and sticks to society is corrupt (and pretty much everyone can agree that society definitely has serious problems) and stays away from conspiracy woo, maybe it's worth paying attention to. I agree with Brian Dunning at Skeptoid that the TZM philosophy is just that...a philosophy, and there's nothing wrong with it in itself, and maybe it's worth paying some heed to and considering.

But not until the people supporting it approach me with some measure of basic respect and drop the insults.

Given what you just told me in the other thread about Z3, I feel a lot more inclined to agree with you.

Bill, I mean this in the nicest way possible:

Have someone proof read and edit it for clarity. You tend to lump things into huge blocks of text.

No, I am not volunteering.

I agree with NWO Florist. Bill, if you want someone to proofread it and edit it before it goes up, I'll be happy to do it for you. I'll consider it educational!

"I have lots of time invested in this movement, work I have done to move it along."

Welcome to life.

Just because you invest a lot of time in something does not inherently make that time well spent.

Acknowledging mistakes is part of growing up.

"I disagree. If a philosophy relies on pseudo-scientific nonsense like tabula rasa then I don't think its worth considering."

I'm pretty sure Dunning said that about Zeitgeist's philosophy to avoid pissing a lot of people off.

Why do you waste your time debating Truthers on Craigslist instead of debating them on TZM's own forums?

I saw your other thread. I am on it.