Michael Hogan Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Who do you think doesn’t belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood’s views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash. First, observing precisely the same tactic or abstract art on the part of different people does not necessarily indicate that this behaviour was produced by the same procedural representations. To observe similar actions and lump people together on the basis of some assumed procedural content is unwarranted and violates a fundamental injunction of cognitive science. (See Kail and Bisanz, 1982; Newell 1973, Young 1978) The Psychology of Tactical Communication By Michael J. Cody, Margaret L. McLaughlin Page 39 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low. Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about. To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance. BK Who do you think doesn't belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood's views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash. I would ask them what they think of your work, but I'm sure they never heard of you. You might be surprised, Fetzer is all to aware of who I am Craig, Tink, Evan and I and others demolished his Wellstone theories here and on another forum. I excanged e-mails with Griffin, Wood refused to answer one of my inquiries And in answer to your question, while they may be academics, PDS's body of work and influence on those who have written books on a number of subjects cannot be overestimated. That well may be the case for his work on the assassination and other issues but his 9/11 work that I've examined is quite shoddy and thus on the same level as the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Who do you think doesn’t belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood’s views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash. First, observing precisely the same tactic or abstract art on the part of different people does not necessarily indicate that this behaviour was produced by the same procedural representations. To observe similar actions and lump people together on the basis of some assumed procedural content is unwarranted and violates a fundamental injunction of cognitive science. (See Kail and Bisanz, 1982; Newell 1973, Young 1978) The Psychology of Tactical Communication By Michael J. Cody, Margaret L. McLaughlin Page 39 Nice techobabble Mike but I never said or implied that the low quality of their work “was produced by the same procedural representations” or “procedural content”. Their work is of a similarly low level I have no idea why. They all seem to have done highly respected work in their areas of specialty, unfortunately their 9/11 work has been poor often risibly so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Jack you said that when ever one of your studies is show to be wrong you correct it. This study was shown to wrong almost 6 months ago and has yet to be corrected. Oh and speaking of studies shown to be in error, did you fix the one about the Pentagon impact point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Nice techobabble (sic) Mike but I never said or implied that the low quality of their work “was produced by the same procedural representations” or “procedural content”. I could dumb it down for you, but then you're the guy that doesn't like to get involved in semantic battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Jack your painfully erroneous claim that the engine was "small and light enough to deposit in a wire wastebasket" still remains* 6 months after Matthew pointed out your error**. Since you said that the part which was obviously in front of and quite a bit larger than the "wire wastebasket" have no right to call others "visually impaired" an affliction your comment show that you suffer from. Your new comment is also a strawman no one claimed that the images were "identical". Your ability to understand what you read is it seems as impaired as your ability to understand what you see. *http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies75.htm ** see 1st post on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Nice techobabble (sic) Mike but I never said or implied that the low quality of their work “was produced by the same procedural representations” or “procedural content”. I could dumb it down for you, but then you're the guy that doesn't like to get involved in semantic battles. OK stun us with your brilliance Mr. ““the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta” and tell us how the quote contradicts or casts doubt on what I had said in post # 90. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low. Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about. To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance. BK Who do you think doesn't belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood's views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash. I would ask them what they think of your work, but I'm sure they never heard of you. You might be surprised, Fetzer is all to aware of who I am Craig, Tink, Evan and I and others demolished his Wellstone theories here and on another forum. I excanged e-mails with Griffin, Wood refused to answer one of my inquiries And in answer to your question, while they may be academics, PDS's body of work and influence on those who have written books on a number of subjects cannot be overestimated. That well may be the case for his work on the assassination and other issues but his 9/11 work that I've examined is quite shoddy and thus on the same level as the others. Have you read The Road to 9/11? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Unfortunately Griffin's level of scholarship re:9/11 like that of Scott, Fetzer, Wood etc is abysmally low. Throwing Griffin, Scott, Fetzer and Wood together shows Len Colby has no level of scholarship whatsoverever and doesn't know what he is talking about. To pharaphrase Ted Bundy, I am more convinced now than ever of Colby's ignorance. BK Who do you think doesn't belong on the list with the others? All use their academic credentials to legitimize their views. However all except Wood are pontificating on areas totally outside their areas of specialty, Wood's views are only marginally related to their areas of specialty and it shows. IMO the 9/11 work of all four has been trash. I would ask them what they think of your work, but I'm sure they never heard of you. You might be surprised, Fetzer is all to aware of who I am Craig, Tink, Evan and I and others demolished his Wellstone theories here and on another forum. I excanged e-mails with Griffin, Wood refused to answer one of my inquiries And in answer to your question, while they may be academics, PDS's body of work and influence on those who have written books on a number of subjects cannot be overestimated. That well may be the case for his work on the assassination and other issues but his 9/11 work that I've examined is quite shoddy and thus on the same level as the others. Have you read The Road to 9/11? BK Bill I read the several chapters he made available online as well as other things he wrote about 9/11. There is enough error in those unfortunately to invite comparison with Griffin’s work. As I told David on the other thread, I just accepted a big rush translation job and won’t be able to comment here much for the next day or two. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Len, I'm surprised you expected any different. Leopards and spots and suchlike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) Bull. Edited March 17, 2008 by Evan Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 http://www.911action.org/the-mystery-of-flight-93/------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flight-93-Revealed...d/dp/1845294645 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysi...ht93/index.html The Crash of Flight 93 Evidence Indicates Flight 93 Was Shot Down [...] Despite these extensive bodies of credible evidence establishing Flight 93's impact time at 10:06 AM, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission asserted that impact was at 10:03. NORAD provides no evidence to back up its claim, but the Commission provides a long footnote to justify its use of 10:03. References 1. Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash, post-gazette.com, 9/13/01 [cached] 2. Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash, 12/27/04 [cached] 3. Surprise Trip for Donald Rumsfeld; Interview With Brigadier General James Marks; Christian in Iraq, CNN.com, [cached] 4. Flight 93: Forty lives, one destiny, post-gazette.com, 10/28/01 [cached] 5. Complete 911 Timeline: United Airlines Flight 93, CooperativeResearch.org, 6. We Know it Crashed, But Not Why, The Philadelphia Daily News, 11/15/01 [cached] 7. Day of Terror: Outside tiny Shanksville, a fourth deadly stroke, post-gazette.com, 9/12/01 [cached] 8. Part I: Terror attacks brought drastic decision: Clear the skies, USA TODAY, 2002 [cached] 9. What was the danger to city? Doomed United Flight 93 passed just south of Pittsburgh, post-gazette.com, 9/13/01 [cached] page last modified: 2006-12-20 This post is essentially spam because most if not all the points it raised have been previously discussed here. Many good references and photoshttp://killtown.911review.org/flight93/links.html Perhaps Mr. Lemkin would be willing to point out any points/evidence on this page not already discussed on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 8, 2008 Share Posted March 8, 2008 Len,I'm surprised you expected any different. Leopards and spots and suchlike. I was hoping he would keeps his word about correcting studies shown to be in error. Six months is obviously more than enough time to have done so. I don't understand how he expects to maintain any credebility when he knowingly leave false information on his site for so much time and doesn't keep his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 http://www.911exposed.org/index.htm Boy, talk about your disinformation sites.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now