[OT] Re: Illuminati (was: Re: Paid performance-tor option?)

[Sven Anderson]

WARNING: This mail has NOTHING to do with Tor.


Am 21.08.2008 um 08:13 schrieb Roy Lanek:

>
>> You watched "Zeitgeist" once too often?
>
> Oh dear ... No, but it's perhaps about time for _you_ to watch ...
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/ a bit say, so to have a chance to
> discover-once/learn-more-on Galileo, Newton, and Celsius [Fahrenheit
> respectively]. (About time ... anno 2008, at the least.)
>
> But be warned, journalof911studies.com collect writings by 1st order
> researchers and professionals only, or mainly: on mathematics,  
> physics,
> chemistry, crystallography, engineering, etc.^1 These researchers, and
> professionals, are NOT hired muddlers, NOT damage-controllers, NOT  
> deniers,
> NOR any other lackeys; in fact, they make honor to science in  
> general, and
> to the branches in which they are expert in particular. (Though of  
> course,
> as in many other sombre circumstances it has happened in history  
> before
> already--guess--they have put at risk their own careers.)

Dear readers, don't trust him. He doesn't know what he is talking  
about and is just blindly repeating what he read on their front page.

I am a physicist myself and just wasted my time looking at that site.  
There is not a single "1st order researcher" and the "papers" are just  
ridiculous. The "peer-review" is a joke, since the peer-group are all  
"believers". And the statement from their front page: "the case for  
falsity of the official explanation is so well established and  
demonstrated by papers in this Journal", proofs they are breaking  
basic scientific rules, since intention spoils your results.

I just randomly picked out one paper (WTC 7: A Short Computation, Vol  
1.) and it took just 30 seconds to find the first wrong assumption  
about the collaps, not to mention that he arbitrarily concludes at the  
end that the "falling floors encountered very little resistance",  
although he assumed _no_ resistance for his own calculations which  
resulted in a _longer_ collapse time! Seriously, although he put some  
awe-inspiring square roots in it, this is incredibly bad work!

It's really pathetic, if no serious journal accepts your stuff, you  
just create you own. It's exactly like the Creationists, who now try  
to give themselves a scientific appearance by calling the same  
bullshit "Intelligent Design".

> Also, given that you have mentioned FUD [keep reading], maybe you
> are confused: journalof911studies.com is related to sites such
> popularmechanics.com as, say, Switzerland and New Zealand on the  
> planet--they
> are at the antipodes.

No, it's not, unfortunately they are quite similar. And FUD is equally  
used by governments and conspiracy theorists.

> Plus, you may be missing how the thing has started ... do you? (And  
> about
> the "conspiracy theories," and on how to solve your defect on  
> knowledge and
> information, you should have got enough suggestions already.)

You are one of those dangerous persons, who don't make a difference  
between knowledge and assumptions.


Sven

-- 
http://sven.anderson.de    "Believe those who are seeking the truth.
tel:    +49-551-9969285     Doubt those who find it."
mobile: +49-179-4939223                                 (André Gide)