So twoofers post videos online all the time. Usually they're harassing somebody with a video camera screaming about their freedom of speech. What reaction do they get? Somebody pissed off who's trying to get away from these aggravating morons. "Victory!" they say, "they're running away from the truth!" No you imbeciles. You'd do the same if somebody penetrated your personal space with a digital camera and nasally voice.
But they've stooped to a new low. We've all had grandfathers. They get to that point when their hearing generally goes, and to try and not look stupid when they can't understand something, they'll generally concede, nod their head, do anything to try and connect with those around them. President Jimmy Carter was at a book signing and asked if he would support an investigation into 9/11. He said: "sounds good". Listen to the noise in the room. Look at the completely lack of confidence in his face. Picking on an old man for proof of legitimacy? Sounds like a failing house of cards to me. Well, judge for yourself:
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Truthers Have to Fake It
Hello everyone, this is a Blog. Our blog is a skeptical rebuttal to claims made by 9/11 deniers.
A blog is not a news outlet. A blog is not a source of broad objectivity. A blog is a place for the opinions of its authors concerning events that they feel are worth commenting on. No “blogger” should pretend otherwise.
Sadly, 9/11 deniers indeed pretend otherwise.
Our blog – our pointed, opinionated blog – is written by three guys to speak for an awesome Facebook group. Another blog, the Journal of 9/11 Studies, is written by three guys for a bunch of trolls.
One of these two pretends to be objective news. Worse than that, it pretends to be an academic journal, one of those things whose legitimacy is supposed to be self-evident. And it ain’t us. But what is it, exactly, that separates the J911S boys from the men of the academic world? Why isn’t this academic “journal” equal to the real thing?
1. Publishing quorum?
I can’t imagine a legitimate academic journal that ever goes to press with zero articles. I can’t even imagine that a legitimate academic journal would keep going to press with, say, a six-month string of only having one article published apiece. J911S has done both.
Fig. 1. The J911S has a completely irregular schedule. This data is presented in two-month spurts, but so far it has had two completely empty “issues” (that is, they skip that month on the website), and an appalling eight out of twenty issues have only had ONE article.
This is not professional. This would be an embarrassing record for a high-schooler’s Xanga. In fact, to even put the word “professional” into this discussion is to degrade the term. This is on the absolutely wrong planet from the library that would have the directory that would contain the name of the bookstore that held the dictionary with the definition of “professional” inside it.
Who could possibly be so lazy and embarrassing?
2. As if you couldn’t guess already... Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge (not famous or sane enough to be listed on any popular debunking sites...yet), and Steven Jones.
All three of these schmucks have the remarkable ability to really, really suck at science and to happily accept claims without evidence – and when they can’t, they just make the evidence up.
None of these “peer editors” are qualified to “edit” a Post-It note, much less an “academic article.” Even worse, they have proven that they will deliberately err on the side of utter garbage, especially when it comes to the charming beliefs of the Loose Change boys. Each has at least implicitly supported as part of the vast marketing/advertising campaign that is the 9/11 denier racket.
In fact, do we have to look any further than their own collective website for evidence of academic diddling in the form of corrupt publishing practices? I’m glad you asked!
3. THE EDITORS EDIT THEMSELVES.
“You” are not a “peer.” “You” are... “you.” These same guys who claim that the NIST is 'the government reporting on itself' (which is categorically false as concurs anyone who knows jack about how such investigations work) use the term “academic journal” to excuse their own blatantly corrupt practices of “peer editing” themselves.
4. ...And they do it a LOT.
In its two-year history, the J911S has had twenty-eight authors publish articles. Three of those twenty-eight authors account for one third of the entire “journal’s” published content. Guess who those three are?
Yes, somehow, by some wondrous coincidence, the editors of J911S manage to “get in” by far the most articles. In fact, there are only two exceptions to this rule. Two other authors have each published four articles but are not editors – Gordon Ross and Gregory S. Jenkins (yes, his article seriously debates the plausibility of using laser beams to destroy the World Trade Center, as if such an option were even on the table), which isn’t also corruption or anything. I suppose in their defense David Ray Griffin has only had one published...
“Academic journals” are a very specific subset of journalism that have very explicit criteria, and lots and LOTS of means of determining the reals from the fakes. I don’t think J911S fools anyone but the most credulous – if anything, it’s just pitiful and embarrassing, like when you try to fix your own car without any knowledge of mechanics.
However, what is slightly less funny is the fact that these people actually resort to this to get themselves noticed. A source of objective news is a precious and indispensable gift to the world. Any place that reports facts is a useful thing. Steve, your website is not a useful thing. Frank, your blog is not and has never been about “academics.” Kevin, stop lying to people.
A blog is not a news outlet. A blog is not a source of broad objectivity. A blog is a place for the opinions of its authors concerning events that they feel are worth commenting on. No “blogger” should pretend otherwise.
Sadly, 9/11 deniers indeed pretend otherwise.
Our blog – our pointed, opinionated blog – is written by three guys to speak for an awesome Facebook group. Another blog, the Journal of 9/11 Studies, is written by three guys for a bunch of trolls.
One of these two pretends to be objective news. Worse than that, it pretends to be an academic journal, one of those things whose legitimacy is supposed to be self-evident. And it ain’t us. But what is it, exactly, that separates the J911S boys from the men of the academic world? Why isn’t this academic “journal” equal to the real thing?
1. Publishing quorum?
I can’t imagine a legitimate academic journal that ever goes to press with zero articles. I can’t even imagine that a legitimate academic journal would keep going to press with, say, a six-month string of only having one article published apiece. J911S has done both.
Fig. 1. The J911S has a completely irregular schedule. This data is presented in two-month spurts, but so far it has had two completely empty “issues” (that is, they skip that month on the website), and an appalling eight out of twenty issues have only had ONE article.
This is not professional. This would be an embarrassing record for a high-schooler’s Xanga. In fact, to even put the word “professional” into this discussion is to degrade the term. This is on the absolutely wrong planet from the library that would have the directory that would contain the name of the bookstore that held the dictionary with the definition of “professional” inside it.
Who could possibly be so lazy and embarrassing?
2. As if you couldn’t guess already... Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge (not famous or sane enough to be listed on any popular debunking sites...yet), and Steven Jones.
All three of these schmucks have the remarkable ability to really, really suck at science and to happily accept claims without evidence – and when they can’t, they just make the evidence up.
None of these “peer editors” are qualified to “edit” a Post-It note, much less an “academic article.” Even worse, they have proven that they will deliberately err on the side of utter garbage, especially when it comes to the charming beliefs of the Loose Change boys. Each has at least implicitly supported as part of the vast marketing/advertising campaign that is the 9/11 denier racket.
In fact, do we have to look any further than their own collective website for evidence of academic diddling in the form of corrupt publishing practices? I’m glad you asked!
3. THE EDITORS EDIT THEMSELVES.
“You” are not a “peer.” “You” are... “you.” These same guys who claim that the NIST is 'the government reporting on itself' (which is categorically false as concurs anyone who knows jack about how such investigations work) use the term “academic journal” to excuse their own blatantly corrupt practices of “peer editing” themselves.
4. ...And they do it a LOT.
In its two-year history, the J911S has had twenty-eight authors publish articles. Three of those twenty-eight authors account for one third of the entire “journal’s” published content. Guess who those three are?
Yes, somehow, by some wondrous coincidence, the editors of J911S manage to “get in” by far the most articles. In fact, there are only two exceptions to this rule. Two other authors have each published four articles but are not editors – Gordon Ross and Gregory S. Jenkins (yes, his article seriously debates the plausibility of using laser beams to destroy the World Trade Center, as if such an option were even on the table), which isn’t also corruption or anything. I suppose in their defense David Ray Griffin has only had one published...
“Academic journals” are a very specific subset of journalism that have very explicit criteria, and lots and LOTS of means of determining the reals from the fakes. I don’t think J911S fools anyone but the most credulous – if anything, it’s just pitiful and embarrassing, like when you try to fix your own car without any knowledge of mechanics.
However, what is slightly less funny is the fact that these people actually resort to this to get themselves noticed. A source of objective news is a precious and indispensable gift to the world. Any place that reports facts is a useful thing. Steve, your website is not a useful thing. Frank, your blog is not and has never been about “academics.” Kevin, stop lying to people.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Fun With Google Trends
“Google Trends” is one of the neatest time-wasters the Interwebs has ever provided. The premise is simple: you type in one or more searchable terms, and it graphs how popular that item is among Googlers everywhere. It’s also handy for getting some laughs at the 9/11 deniers’ expense.
How often have you heard twoofers describe themselves as part of a “growing movement?” A “huge” or even “global” organization, perhaps? Well, for starters, they didn’t even have enough search engine visibility to be on the radar until about 2006:
Fig. 1-1: The search term “9/11 truth,” used as the banner for many, m a n y 9/11 denier sites. Hey, what’s that crazy spike in 2006? We’ll get to that, don’t worry.
Fig. 1-2: The search term “loose change,” complete with news items. There wasn’t even a significantly-read news piece about the stupid movie itself until 2006, and – hey, is that a “Popular Mechanics Bump” going on there?
A Popular Mechanics Bump? Could it really be? The greatest opportunity for open ridicule of the 9/11 deniers of all time?
Is the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement piggy-back-riding the very critics it denounces as “shills” and “liars,” who it targets for murder and death?
Not only is Popular Mechanics infinitely more popular; but also, evidently the only time anybody even reads about the 9/11 denier movement, they’re reading about it getting slammed by the skeptics.
Everyone who has surveyed the rise and extremely rapid decline of the 9/11 denier movement has already recognized this on some level – not only has it clearly completely fallen apart, and its critics grown more numerous and vocal, but it was never that popular to begin with.
Pop quiz kids. Who is more popular: A movement comprised of dozens of pomo academics, thousands of angry Facebookers, a few carnies in it for the money, armed with quasi-lucrative DVD and book sales...
...or me?
Of course, I’m just being mischievous – “John Ray” was a famous botanist and theologian, owns an oil company, makes guitars in Spain, sounds sad upon the radio...
But the point is, how seriously can they really take themselves (or be taken by anyone else) when it becomes obvious that their proclaimed “strength” and “credibility” are transparent shams? How must it feel to only be recognized when you’re being debunked and ridiculed? How can they cling desperately onto their image as a morally-superior popular movement, when the fact is that many more people are on the side of reality?
Wake up and smell the Internet traffic, kids. You’re a cranky subculture that has boxed itself into a shrinking corner through your systematic alienation of anyone and everyone with a brain between his, her, and/or their ears. Especially considering that the Internet is about the only place where you've been allowed to fester unchecked, you've essentially lost on your home turf. Just so there's no illusion, and just so all of the data are perfectly clear: Nobody Agrees With You.
How often have you heard twoofers describe themselves as part of a “growing movement?” A “huge” or even “global” organization, perhaps? Well, for starters, they didn’t even have enough search engine visibility to be on the radar until about 2006:
Fig. 1-1: The search term “9/11 truth,” used as the banner for many, m a n y 9/11 denier sites. Hey, what’s that crazy spike in 2006? We’ll get to that, don’t worry.
Fig. 1-2: The search term “loose change,” complete with news items. There wasn’t even a significantly-read news piece about the stupid movie itself until 2006, and – hey, is that a “Popular Mechanics Bump” going on there?
A Popular Mechanics Bump? Could it really be? The greatest opportunity for open ridicule of the 9/11 deniers of all time?
Is the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement piggy-back-riding the very critics it denounces as “shills” and “liars,” who it targets for murder and death?
Not only is Popular Mechanics infinitely more popular; but also, evidently the only time anybody even reads about the 9/11 denier movement, they’re reading about it getting slammed by the skeptics.
Everyone who has surveyed the rise and extremely rapid decline of the 9/11 denier movement has already recognized this on some level – not only has it clearly completely fallen apart, and its critics grown more numerous and vocal, but it was never that popular to begin with.
Pop quiz kids. Who is more popular: A movement comprised of dozens of pomo academics, thousands of angry Facebookers, a few carnies in it for the money, armed with quasi-lucrative DVD and book sales...
...or me?
Of course, I’m just being mischievous – “John Ray” was a famous botanist and theologian, owns an oil company, makes guitars in Spain, sounds sad upon the radio...
But the point is, how seriously can they really take themselves (or be taken by anyone else) when it becomes obvious that their proclaimed “strength” and “credibility” are transparent shams? How must it feel to only be recognized when you’re being debunked and ridiculed? How can they cling desperately onto their image as a morally-superior popular movement, when the fact is that many more people are on the side of reality?
Wake up and smell the Internet traffic, kids. You’re a cranky subculture that has boxed itself into a shrinking corner through your systematic alienation of anyone and everyone with a brain between his, her, and/or their ears. Especially considering that the Internet is about the only place where you've been allowed to fester unchecked, you've essentially lost on your home turf. Just so there's no illusion, and just so all of the data are perfectly clear: Nobody Agrees With You.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The state of things:
If Facebook is a barometer for the state of the conspiracy theorists (and since by my measure most of them are high school-college kids this is a pretty good assumption), then desperate is the best word to come to mind.
Our group has experienced a DRAMATIC increase in activity. When I first took over the admin position for our 9/11 group there were no debates, very few discussion topics, and some 300 members. Now there are close 900, and as John Ray pointed out, we are one of the most active 9/11 conspiracy-related groups on Facebook.
With this influx of activity, a few observations:
The sheer number of "9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY 100%!!!!" posts and those like it. It's either out of laziness or hopes that some sort of provocation can come of it: neither of which are healthy, or productive methods of argument, even way to live a life. The need, the desire, to believe that the government was involved in 9/11, and other conspiracies, doesn't just reach "personal interest" levels, it skyrockets to obsession. The government NEEDS to be part of it. Why?
From a psychological standpoint, I would believe that someone who finds these conspiracies appealing would be feeling significant in their own lives. These conspiracy theories, and communities, empower the individual: doing research, creating videos, meetings, rallies, etc. It's a strong, albeit insane, community, that makes members feel important because they're part of something bigger.
The realization that there is nothing bigger, nothing other than what we've been told and have seen, goes beyond just being "wrong", for them it's destroying a necessary facet of their lives. To be wrong means to be insignificant. And that's understandably terrifying.
And at the same time, gloriously fitting.
Our group has experienced a DRAMATIC increase in activity. When I first took over the admin position for our 9/11 group there were no debates, very few discussion topics, and some 300 members. Now there are close 900, and as John Ray pointed out, we are one of the most active 9/11 conspiracy-related groups on Facebook.
With this influx of activity, a few observations:
The sheer number of "9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY 100%!!!!" posts and those like it. It's either out of laziness or hopes that some sort of provocation can come of it: neither of which are healthy, or productive methods of argument, even way to live a life. The need, the desire, to believe that the government was involved in 9/11, and other conspiracies, doesn't just reach "personal interest" levels, it skyrockets to obsession. The government NEEDS to be part of it. Why?
From a psychological standpoint, I would believe that someone who finds these conspiracies appealing would be feeling significant in their own lives. These conspiracy theories, and communities, empower the individual: doing research, creating videos, meetings, rallies, etc. It's a strong, albeit insane, community, that makes members feel important because they're part of something bigger.
The realization that there is nothing bigger, nothing other than what we've been told and have seen, goes beyond just being "wrong", for them it's destroying a necessary facet of their lives. To be wrong means to be insignificant. And that's understandably terrifying.
And at the same time, gloriously fitting.
The Onion has put it succinctly!
If anyone has been looking at 9/11 conspiracies, I think they can say that these conspiracy theories make Al-Qaeda look like rational people. I think that's a sign that the truth movement has expired...
The Onion made a great point by putting a 9/11 CTer with a "terrorist" from Al-Qaeda.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
CTers, I think it's time to call it a day...
The Onion made a great point by putting a 9/11 CTer with a "terrorist" from Al-Qaeda.
9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says
CTers, I think it's time to call it a day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)