« No, We Don't Own You. | Main | Journalists Gone WILD! »

November 16, 2012



The slick but crappy, cherry picking documentaries they get their information from.

The similarities between the two are that they both present arguments that have been debunked. Over and over and over.

A 9/11 Truther reminds me alot of an evolution denier. Ignoring a mountain of evidence while pointing to the three grains of sand in their hand saying, " See! You can't explain that!"


A perfect score, NR. It was a trick question. There is no real difference because they both let bias and agenda present real science as something it really isn't.


The climate change denier is still taken seriously.


Just wondering: Is an incurious existence at all satisfying? From my point of view, opaque and gullible is no way to live.


What's that you're always spouting about "self-reflection", Mark? I pointed out to you quite clearly that your attempt at 'common sense' physics was all wrong. The curious person learns science so as not to be deceived. The un-inquisitive, such as yourself, use the trappings of science to foist an agenda.

Your attempt to use Newton's third law of motion was pig ignorant. I was even polite in pointing that out to you, and you deleted those comments because you simply 'didn't want to deal with them'. And I didn't even bring up one of the most instructive applications of Newton's third law, which is 'tensile strength', the forces involved in valence and molecular structure. Someone getting to the 'truth' of what happened on 9/ll would actually bother to learn about these things. But not you. You substitute curiosity for fantasy and call that good.

So, you can see how I am curious, Tokarski: Is an incurious existence at all satisfying? Because, from my point of view, opaque and gullible is no way to live.

p.s. 9/11 was an inside job. It was caused by the Unicorns!


Erin, sadly, you make a very good point.


Not so, oh curious one. It is but mere mass, steel is denser than aluminum, and further, the far reaches of a jet wing are fragile, and cannot begin to make a roadrunner hole in a steel building. They therefore, in a Newtonian world, would have broken off an fallen to the street. You might make an argument that some of the stronger elements in a jet airliner might, due to high speed, have overcome inertia and caught the building by surprise. That, in your words, is "tensile strength" and is, as I see it, a complete bullshit analysis, reverse engineering, taking the result, even if absurd, and working it backwards to what must be the answer. It's an UN-Newtonian world, but blends well n established thinking where power dictates reality.

In other words you stated with your conclusion and worked backwards. You may have four-pointed philosophy, though I've yet to see evidence. You bungled physics. You aced in conformity 101. You are a coward.


Really, Tokarski? All you have is that 'you're not the ignorant poopy-head', I am?

Since you seem to have the same inquisitiveness about science as Bill O'reilly, here's a few hints for you, Idiot.
a) Density /= mass. One metric ton of feathers is certainly less dense than one metric ton of steel, though surprisingly, they have the same mass.
b) Size /= mass. Strangely you understand this without understanding the first point.
c) The mass of a jet-liner's wing is vastly greater than that of a light pole. Your confusion is simple, based on the fact that you don't understand point a). You think, because human skin has less density than a glass table top, a human falling through a glass table would damage the person and not the glass. You couldn't be more wrong. the mass of an object is not defined by the material it is covered with.
d) When discussing impact application of Newton's third law, mass and acceleration are vector quantities in the force equation. I know that kinda confuses you, so you might want to do the Google and look up what the word "vector" means. Here's the layman's version for folks like you who want the 'common sense' physics. If you hit a 20 lb. log round with a 12 pound sledge hammer, you will dent the log and your arms will ache from the bounce, because of Newton's third law. BUT, if you hit the same round with a 5 pound axe, the log splits, and your arms absorb much less force. Now why would that be? The mass of the hammer is so much greater than that of the axe, and the mass of the axe is so much less than that of the log. Curious, aren't you? Come on, Mark, even you can noodle this out. The log splits because the mass of the structures and the acceleration of the edge at the point of impact are vectors. That's why curved blades cut better than straight blades. They decrease the masses of the impact at the point of contact, and increase the acceleration and duration of the 'impact'.
e) You don't seem to understand tensile strength at all, save in the broadest sense (which I'm certain you Googled to even get that.) If I plant a stick in the ground, and hit it at the top, the top moves wildly, due to the greater mass and acceleration of my hand. Inertia is certainly and obviously overcome. BUT, since the force on the object (stick) is equal to the force with which I strike it, the bottom near the ground cannot equalize the acceleration of the mass vector I struck the stick with, so that acceleration is absorbed by the structural forces that hold the object together. Inertia of the structure is overcome and the stick breaks at the bottom. Haven't you ever once, in your incurious life, wondered how wind can take down a light pole, but they always break or bend at the bottom? Are you serious about telling us all that air has more mass and/or density than steel?

I was serious about what I wrote at your site-o-bullshit, Mark. I have no interest in arguing about your stupid ass conspiracy theories. But I will not let an ignorant challenge to science go unanswered. Your view of physics is all wrong. As far as I am concerned, you libeled Sir Isaac Newton.

Most certainly, you will not acknowledge that you just had your ass handed to you. At most you'll claim tl;dr. But you are ignorant, and you passed conformity 101 with flying colors. You are conforming to the hipster/iconoclast view that whatever is official (even Newtonian physics) must be exposed for the lie it is, in your weak mind. Regardless of whether the government lied about 9/11, Newton didn't. Now, coward, I will expect your retraction in 3.2.1 ... Never.


Well said, Wulfgar. I wish more people actually understood science.

larry kurtz

Rob: I confess to believing that 1,2 and 7 were retroactively wired probably after the first WTC attack for demolition quietly then were 'pulled' to protect assets both monetary and classified from what might have looked like a heist to someone giving the order that day in September.

It is difficult to suspend my disbelief but certainly not impossible that novice pilots pulled it all off.


Larry, there is a significant difference between your incredulity concerning the official account of events and Tokarski's truther crusade. The first difference of course is that you hold your knowledge and concerns as your own, and don't beat people over the head with them (as in a crusade). The second is that you don't abuse science in the name of that crusade. The third, and most significant to me, is that you don't use Tokarski's circular reasoning: the government must be lying therefore ipso facto the government is lying.

I find it quite literally funny when Mark accuses me of making a conclusion and then working backwards to justify it. His mangling of basic physics was precisely that.


Down goes Newton to agitprop. He did not understand its power.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad