An article this author wrote that made it onto eSkeptic was written with the thesis believed and spoken by many: that the 9/11 denier “movement” is essentially dead and that its “leaders” have failed to convince anyone in the public of their claims. One of the main examples of this demonstrable failure is the pitiful, fraudulent scam known as the Journal of 9/11 Studies which we’ve blogged about previously . At the time said article was written, that blog had not managed to secrete any new content in roughly three months.
That has now changed.
At first this author was concerned because that publication’s dearth of content was a central part of my argument. Even though its one measly article (“article”), this means that my hypothesis may not be modeling the facts as accurately as it could be. Fortunately, after reading the article (“article”), I feel confident that my central claim stands.
First of all, it’s a measly four pages, which you can bump down to probably three or even two and a half because the author double-spaces all of his improperly-cited links. Second of all, it starts with exactly one of the little red flags that lets you know you’re not dealing with a serious person: quasi-accurate jargon.
“Both Boolean algebra and probability theory have been invoked as a means of estimating the likelihood that the official explanation of the event as a whole can be relied upon…”
(Just so we’re clear, the source it cites to argue that point doesn’t actually use Boolean algebra)
Nobody trying to convince a popular audience of his or her claims would use ridiculous and turgid jargon like this. Only someone insecure of the validity of their claims (with good reason in this case) would cloak their words in such V-SAT mush.
And, of course, we’ve already discussed why Frank Legge is not a good source for math. But don’t take our word for it – take his! Yes, nowhere in an entire article called “9/11 and Probability Theory” is there a single piece of probability theory. What is there is a really, really sad and silly criticism of a real academic article that only makes you wonder how these guys look themselves in the mirror. Legge argues that this scientific article is false because it “provides no mechanism to explain” how the top part of the buildings made the bottom part of the buildings collapse, as if the authors had to stop and say, “oh by the way, there were these planes involved on 9/11.”
Frank Legge’s blog post is, if anything, further proof of the desperation and hard times upon which 9/11 racketeers such as himself have fallen upon. The confederacy of dunces may rise again, but it sure isn’t going to be any time soon if this is what they can come up with.