'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
kyser_soze said:
No, it was only contradictory when you read it, not when i wrote it. Note the difference.
I said i'd never claimed to have a dissertation. I don't claim anything. I either do or i don't, can or can't, there's no 'claiming' in my life, and all the connotations that this word carries. I posted what i did to refute your use of 'claim' to describe my honest posting.
Now get this once, i ain't bothering typing up where i studied, nor what. Just fucking take my word for it, or don't, but stop hassling me over it. Think what you want man.
Your comment about the net and the bloke in nebraska is the only correct thing in your post.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
fela fan said:
Out of curiosity, how does someone do a PG degree without having done a undergrad disertation first. I know in technical subjects you don't always do one, i'm not, but in the wooly subjects i thought it was mandatory.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
But it was acceptable for you to repeatedly hassle Dillinger to reveal exactly the same information, yes?
The reason I want to know where you went is so I know to tell my kids and anyone I know to avoid such a mickey mouse institution that churns out lecturers who talk as much bollocks as you do.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Bob_the_lost said:
Out of curiosity, how does someone do a PG degree without having done a undergrad disertation first. I know in technical subjects you don't always do one, i'm not, but in the wooly subjects i thought it was mandatory.
www.degreesforfree.nebraska.us
Well no because expert testimony involves a cognitive asymetry: lay persons can't assess the expert's view on its own terms. So we get a situation where each side throws expert testimony on the other, or simply attacks the authority of the source on grounds extrinsic to what they're actually saying. Rational debate fairly quickly breaks down.Demosthenes said:
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
rich! said:
do you have a link mate? that just sounds as snooker-loopy as all the 9/11 fanny-batter.
kyser_soze said:
I didn't hassle anybody. I'm on a forum, we're not using american pussyfooting around language on urban. It is absolutely pertinent to the thread that we know what degree dillinger is doing. There are different boundaries, different things that are acceptable or not, depending on the degree and the field of study.
You'll have a hard time telling anyone they're a mickey mouse institution. But, hey don't let me stop you mate.
Bob_the_lost said:
Out of curiosity, how does someone do a PG degree without having done a undergrad disertation first. I know in technical subjects you don't always do one, i'm not, but in the wooly subjects i thought it was mandatory.
A man with some reading skills. Yes, well noticed, but the degree i did stated in so many words "candidates are expected to hold a good first degree".
I focussed on the word 'expected'...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What, so you don't think the repeated posts insisting that Dill tell you what degree he was doing wasn't hassling him?
And it's pertinent to our discussion of your academic credibility, on the basis that you've offered advice and comment to Dill, that you tell us what your undergrad and post grad studies were, and what your own dissertation was on.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nosos said:
Corrected!
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Eurgh! Academic jism...an image of a man in a tweed jacket and cords furiously fapping over some hot young undergrad popped into my head...
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Bob_the_lost said:
You can abuse me all you like--far from being a 'conspiracy theory' Notes From the Borderland has named 13 individuals (including police officers & journalists) who still need to answer specific questions in that case.
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
Larry O'Hara said:
could you please send me a link to the article?
and/or please explain to me just who/what could possibly benefit from this?
thanks
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Sorry Larry, are you talking about the moon landings or David Kelly there?
chico enrico said:
you'd need to grab a copy of NftB#3. For whatever reason they haven't been put up on teh interweb. I found a summarising article:
http://1grapevinegrove.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/soho-bombings-inside-job/
but that's several steps away.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze said:
your wit is only surpassed by your intelligence.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
That'd be a great compliment if I weren't reading it with a dose of sarcasm that made it taste like that orrible pink cough medcine goo you give to kids to make them want to not be ill...
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
rich! said:
thanks mate.
complete and utter snooky loopy conspiraloonery as I suspected.
Funny how the authors omit to mention that pretty much anyone with something other than candy floss between their ears had sussed out there was a neo-nazi bomber at large and that the next target (as suggested in numerous papers/online etc) would either be a gay or jewish area or perhaps even an 'irish area' (kilburn/archway?) as soon as they heard of the target of the 2nd bombing.
I had an ex-flatmate who worked in a gay bar around old compton st who i remember meeting a few days before the admiral duncan who mentioned that the old bill had been in warning them to be extra vigilant - as you would...
can't even be bothered to dignify this veritable Glastonbury portaloo of shit with any more time.
conspiraloons - FUCK OFF!
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
rich! said:
not seen that link before myself. Thanks for that. There is also (or was) an interesting article originally put on Outrage by Simon Forbes now to be found here. At some point, we will put the summary article from issue 6 on-line, but as I have said before, it is not a priority for us, given they have to be retyped due to the software we use.
Edited to add, it is indeed one of the many curses of the internet age that the very fact our many pages of detailed referenced research on this are ignored, precisely because they are not on the internet--and this lack is held to 'prove' we should be abused and sworn at by saddoes as here. That just one of our sources, Simon Forbes, was in a very good position to know what he was talking about is blithely ignored. And so on. I'll certainly not waste further time on this here, nor will I move placing NFB 6 summary on the web up our priority list. For those who think something is only 'real' if it is on the internet, I have no sympathy, or even pity.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
chico enrico said:
indeed: why don't you, quick-time, I'll not keep you.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I got as far as the stuff about the Duncan being visited before having to close the window in ever-bubbling anger.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
kyser_soze said:
or did Nanny call you back to the play-room so you could try again to master Janet & John?
(was linked earlier)me said:
Jonti said:
Hasn't there.? That's totally news to me. I was really surprised by this.
You see in this "debunker video" you see an explosion come out of the second tower, high, black smoke coming out on all sides, as if from a bomb on the inside, and no plane in sight, - though from other videos with a plane, you might think maybe the plane was round the back.
But then the debunker says, actually it's true that no plane hit the second tower. - and goes into another explanation, which probably makes perfect sense. But, when I've glanced at 911 threads occasionally, - Debunkers generally say something along the lines of - -does it not occur to you, that perhaps the reason the towers fell down was because two enormous jet planes crashed into them. And that seemed like a reasonable point of view, - because, my memory of the events was that first one jet plane hit one tower, and then one jet plane hit the other. And then they fell down.
I watched all the videos that I watched yesterday without sound - which actually was quite helpful maybe, because i wasn't listening to anyone telling me how I should interpret what I was seeing, I had to try to figure it out for myself.- (and generally, I couldn't make sense of the whole thing))
The odd thing is, though is that overall, the impression I got from watching the films on youtube is that there are films where the planes disappear into the towers, and then there are explosions, and there are films where there aren't any planes, there's just explosions. But when you compare the two versions, - the ones without planes seem to make more sense than the ones with planes. That's honestly how it seemed to me.
As far as popular mechanics is concerned: Well I'm sure that gravity and newtonian mechanics are essential to explaining why the towers fell down. But, that's not really what bothers me.
If someone could post a link to a good video of a plane crashing into a tower, - then, you know, we could look at it, and I could either be convinced that it does show that the planes were real, or else, I could explain why it doesn't seem real to me. And then, people can say, well, my top-down desire to not believe the official explanation has made my eyes deceive me.
But without studying a particular film, there's not much to say about it.
But there are loads of things I dont understand. My memory of the film on the day, and afterwards, was a film of a plane coming in fast from the left, hitting the tower, and a big flash of flame where the plane hit the tower.
But the videos on youtube generally show explosions coming out of all sides of the tower, - and predominantly black smoke rather than flame.
Another odd one was, the first one I watched which appeared to be a CNN report, breaking news. It was from ground level, - the first explosion. First they're filming firemen milling about on the ground, then they suddenly wheel round and up to focus high on the tower, and almost immediately, a huge explosion comes out of the front of the building, dead centre in the camera, no plane visible, possibly because of the viewpoint.
And I found this odd, because, as it was the first explosion, - I couldn't think of an explanation why the camera man suddenly decided to focus on exactly where the explosion happened, directly before it happened.
Similar threads
- Locked
