|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Journal of 9/11 Studies
Farcical article (and editors)[edit]
Hi guys,
This page is absolutely farcical, as are the attempts of those moderators attempting to prevent it from being edited. It is essentially a page-long political smear attack against any scientist who associates him/herself with the idea that the 9/11 official story is false. The language is purposefully loaded to employ mockery as a political weapon and to manufacture a false, one-sided narrative. For example, without producing a single iota of evidence that the peer-review process is in any way defective or flawed in this journal, the author arbitrarily decides to place inverted commas around the term, peer-reviewed. Ironically, the NIST study sponsored by the US government has never been peer-reviewed, because NIST won't release its data to the public. Hence, the author is literally making an attempt to turn the facts upside down. None of the malicious allegations made by the author are supported by any evidence, or even a reasoned argument. Instead, he/she uses mockery as a catch-all offence against the journal and the hundreds of different pieces of scientific research it hosts in an overt attempt to discredit it for personal political reasons.
I would like to make an appeal to users to modify this page. At the very least, I think we should remove the loaded language which implies the author has proven something he has not proven. The author has not proven that The Journal Of 9/11 Studies is a "crank" journal, nor does mocking something he agrees the journal is correct about (i.e. debunking Judy Wood's hypothesis) prove that the journal is wrong about anything. At best, this page is dripping with bias. At worst, it is a total aberration of the truth.
Thanks. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Nope. Your edits are poorly formatted, your sources are shit (Daily Mail, twice; the Urban Dictionary... seriously!?), and some of the reasoning is bollocks too (number 9 particularly) and number 10, that conspiracy theorists have committed suicide or killed people, is completely irrelevant except there are unstable 9/11 truthers. Number 7 doesn't even link where you want it to link. It's not like it's a great "reason"; the paragraph doesn't rule out possible bias of attracting the conspiracy crowd. You'll also have to conclude that Yahoo News or Youtube comments are considered more "sane" than regular opinions just because there's a ton of crap comments that get upvoted. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 17:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okey-dokie.... I'm responding here partly because similar concerns were raised on the JREF forum way back in the ancient year of 2006 about the NIST study. I happened upon said forum posts while reading various things around the internet. Here's a link to the forum thread which addresses most if not all of your points, and refutes them. Have a nice day. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to have the complete wrong end of the stick. The article I linked here earlier had nothing to do with The Journal of 9/11 Studies. It was something I posted because I got frustrated removing the false statements of fact present in the article only to have them reappear 30 seconds later. Furthermore, I find it simply astonishing that you would cherry-pick only the least credible sources used in that text and voluntarily ignore all the higher quality sources which were also used, including: the FEMA metallurgy report, the BBC news website, the WMI journal and ABC news. You do not get to disregard information on the basis that, A) You have ignored half of it, and B) You unilaterally decide the remaining sources are "shit". That's patently ridiculous. I completely agree with you that The Daily Mail is not a high quality source, but does that mean that nothing it ever prints is true? No, of course not. If you actually read the story instead of letting personal bias dictate what you are prepared to acknowledge, you would discover that the Daily Mail interviewed three different university professors for the piece, and the parts I posted were direct quotes from those academics. More specifically, I provided a direct quote from Professor Bruce Lawrence, widely regarded to be the foremost authority on Osama bin Laden currently working in academia.
- Okey-dokie.... I'm responding here partly because similar concerns were raised on the JREF forum way back in the ancient year of 2006 about the NIST study. I happened upon said forum posts while reading various things around the internet. Here's a link to the forum thread which addresses most if not all of your points, and refutes them. Have a nice day. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I find it simply incredible that you could even begin to question anybody else's sources when you provided literally nothing to support your bizarre accusation that The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a "crank pseudo-journal", or your implication that it is not properly peer-reviewed. That is the very definition of double standards. I am more than prepared to provide evidence to support my contention that The Journal of 9/11 is peer-reviewed by scientists. For example:-
- The authors who publish in the journal are (for the most part) respectable scientists with large bibliographies of peer-reviewed research not connected to 9/11. Your personal decision to write them all off as cranks for no other reason than because they don't agree with your fantasy interpretation of reality is myopic and screams that you have no place writing factual articles. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Then provide evidence and logical arguments for your position instead of re-writing the article because you disagree with it. COMMUNICATE!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- That edit was a Gish Gallop, so I figured it would be easier to tackle the bad ones than the others ones. And I have no clue what article you're trying to link to or not, so it's all on you for not making anything clear by first posting on your own talk page and just saying "this article". I wouldn't dismiss the FEMA report, but the conclusions drawn from them are not good, and I think 9/11 rebuts that one. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Is that comment supposed to be a joke? My first three edits simply removed the parts of the article which were false statements of fact. I think you have the concept of burden of proof the wrong way around. It is not my responsibility to disprove your assertions. It is yours to prove them. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Your last comment was a continuation of the same personal bias which saw you load the article with false assertions and misplaced mockery in the first place, buddy. It proves that you are not analysing the information which is being put in front of you, but are scrambling for excuses to reject it without consideration. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- You are asserting that we are wrong, you are the challenger in this case. Our article is our side of the issue. Prove your case or shut up. I hate little shits who can't understand that the article is our side of the issue and then demand we present evidence to prove our case. We already did, you are disputing that evidence. Put up or shut up. Don't just vaguely say you can refute us, DO IT!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- David Ray Griffin being a crank isn't a "false statement of fact" (oxymoron much?). You also removed sourced statements of what they have actually did. You're not removing "bias" you're just removing information that makes the journal look bad and also just saying "nuh uh it is peer-reviewed". And then you proceeded to blank the page and replace it with a Gish Gallop 9/11 truther bites which would otherwise constitute vandalism (especially since they're not even relevant to this article). I tried to dive a little into that list, picking off easy targets (which is quite a few) because a good argument shouldn't have to rely on Urban freaking Dictionary and some flawed interpretations of the facts. The truth is, however, I'm not super well-equipped to deal with this kind of crankery but maybe I will get better after this. By the way, MDPI
carries baggage over the curation so I'm very skeptical. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- David Ray Griffin being a crank isn't a "false statement of fact" (oxymoron much?). You also removed sourced statements of what they have actually did. You're not removing "bias" you're just removing information that makes the journal look bad and also just saying "nuh uh it is peer-reviewed". And then you proceeded to blank the page and replace it with a Gish Gallop 9/11 truther bites which would otherwise constitute vandalism (especially since they're not even relevant to this article). I tried to dive a little into that list, picking off easy targets (which is quite a few) because a good argument shouldn't have to rely on Urban freaking Dictionary and some flawed interpretations of the facts. The truth is, however, I'm not super well-equipped to deal with this kind of crankery but maybe I will get better after this. By the way, MDPI
- You are asserting that we are wrong, you are the challenger in this case. Our article is our side of the issue. Prove your case or shut up. I hate little shits who can't understand that the article is our side of the issue and then demand we present evidence to prove our case. We already did, you are disputing that evidence. Put up or shut up. Don't just vaguely say you can refute us, DO IT!!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your last comment was a continuation of the same personal bias which saw you load the article with false assertions and misplaced mockery in the first place, buddy. It proves that you are not analysing the information which is being put in front of you, but are scrambling for excuses to reject it without consideration. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Is that comment supposed to be a joke? My first three edits simply removed the parts of the article which were false statements of fact. I think you have the concept of burden of proof the wrong way around. It is not my responsibility to disprove your assertions. It is yours to prove them. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- That edit was a Gish Gallop, so I figured it would be easier to tackle the bad ones than the others ones. And I have no clue what article you're trying to link to or not, so it's all on you for not making anything clear by first posting on your own talk page and just saying "this article". I wouldn't dismiss the FEMA report, but the conclusions drawn from them are not good, and I think 9/11 rebuts that one. --It's-a me,
- Then provide evidence and logical arguments for your position instead of re-writing the article because you disagree with it. COMMUNICATE!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- The authors who publish in the journal are (for the most part) respectable scientists with large bibliographies of peer-reviewed research not connected to 9/11. Your personal decision to write them all off as cranks for no other reason than because they don't agree with your fantasy interpretation of reality is myopic and screams that you have no place writing factual articles. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Firstly, no it is not a statement of fact that David Ray Griffin is a crank. Secondly, no it is not a statement of fact to imply that David Ray Griffin is the only author to write material for The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Even if David Ray Griffin were a crank, this is an article about The Journal of 9/11 Studies, not David Ray Griffin. If you can't even stay on topic then wtf are you doing writing articles here in the first place? So far everything you have said has been nothing short of plain stupid. Ad hominem personal attacks and blind link drops to internet debating forums do not constitute evidence.
- In order for me to assert that you are wrong then you must first assert that you are right. Hence, as with the article itself, you are turning the facts upside down. When a defendant stands in front of a judge, he does not need to prove that the prosecution is "wrong". The prosecution (i.e. the people making the claim of guilt) need to prove that they are right. That is how burden of proof works. I feel that nobody on planet Earth could turn the facts upside down quite so patently were they not doing it on purpose. For the second time, it is not my responsibility to disprove claims you have made which are false, and which are supported by literally nothing outside of a blind link drop to a public internet debate site. Does this compute? — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- Fuck it. Here's our case.
- In order for me to assert that you are wrong then you must first assert that you are right. Hence, as with the article itself, you are turning the facts upside down. When a defendant stands in front of a judge, he does not need to prove that the prosecution is "wrong". The prosecution (i.e. the people making the claim of guilt) need to prove that they are right. That is how burden of proof works. I feel that nobody on planet Earth could turn the facts upside down quite so patently were they not doing it on purpose. For the second time, it is not my responsibility to disprove claims you have made which are false, and which are supported by literally nothing outside of a blind link drop to a public internet debate site. Does this compute? — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
Journal of 9/11 Studies Some dare call it Conspiracy Icon conspiracy.svg What THEY don't want you to know!
Denver Airport conspiracy theories James Delingpole Obama citizenship denial Southern Poverty Law Center Stansberry and Associates Toxoplasma gondii U.S. dollar bill folding tricks Wake up Whistleblower
Sheeple wakers
Alberto Rivera Des Griffin Jedi Mind Tricks Ken Jopp Malik Zulu Shabazz Mike Cernovich Pat Condell Theodore Beale Tucker Carlson
v - t - e
The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer- crank-reviewed, online, open source pseudojournal that gives 9/11 Truthers a place to just ask questions. Some high-profile Truthers like David Ray Griffin have written articles for the journal. Ironically, in their attempt to appear "credible" and "serious," they've run a number of articles debunking the egregiously unhinged theories like Judy Wood's "space beams"[1] and stuff they've run in their own journal, like the "elephant plane" theory.[2] The journal also spawned a counter-publication debunking it called the Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.[3]
In 2011, they ran out of "peer-reviewers" and sent out a request for someone to review two papers defending the "official" account of a plane hitting the Pentagon. The Screw Loose Change blog remarked: “”Great, so after 10 years of cutting edge research and truthseeking they finally figured out what the rest of us knew that Tuesday morning. And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously? —You Too Can Be A Peer Reviewer![4]
But now 9/11 conspiracy theories must be taken seriously, because, look, this research is "peer-reviewed!" External links
Journal of 9/11 Studies Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Screw Loose Change's category for the journal Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse! by Dave Thomas Journal of 9/11 Studies caught in a few more lies, Conspiracies R Not Us
References
Scientific Critique of Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapons by James Gourley Flying Elephant or Routine Takeoff? by Jim Hoffman http://www.jod911.com/
You Too Can Be A Peer Reviewer! - Screw Loose Change
This conspiracy theorists-related article is a stub. You can help RationalWiki by expanding it. Categories:
Conspiracy theoriesLiberal moonbatteryPseudojournalsWebsites
- Refute it or shut up, I'm tired of your semantic bullcrap. I honestly tried to be impartial and hear your case, but like many Truthers before you you claimed to be able to present it but refused. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and was even intrigued by some of your claims but in the end you spat on my hand of friendship. Fuck you, and fuck your games. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're not getting this. We provide David Ray Griffin as a prime example of what this journal (or "journal") publishes, which doesn't reflect well on its quality. No one is saying that he is the only writer for the journal. What you're doing is a gross misrepresentation of the article, hence a strawman. The guy is a crank who trots out tired 9/11 truther points that are likely discussed in our 9/11 page. Also, why are you calling our links "blind link drops" but urge us to examine your links? Why does this have to be explained to you? Your incompetence with grasping how wikis work is showing not only here but also how you're editing pages. You sign with ~~~~ at the end of your comments. New comments go at the bottom (usually) and you use colons for indents so the comments flow correctly. You're consistently failing in all these as well as the aforementioned blanking pages and subsequently adding irrelevant information. It's getting tiresome correcting formatting errors while you don't notice. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Screw Loose Change is a blog. Who in their right mind tries to discredit peer-reviewed science with a blog? Are you autistic? And re-open the page please. Locking the page is not a form of argument. — Unsigned, by: Quantumhead / talk / contribs
- You're not getting this. We provide David Ray Griffin as a prime example of what this journal (or "journal") publishes, which doesn't reflect well on its quality. No one is saying that he is the only writer for the journal. What you're doing is a gross misrepresentation of the article, hence a strawman. The guy is a crank who trots out tired 9/11 truther points that are likely discussed in our 9/11 page. Also, why are you calling our links "blind link drops" but urge us to examine your links? Why does this have to be explained to you? Your incompetence with grasping how wikis work is showing not only here but also how you're editing pages. You sign with ~~~~ at the end of your comments. New comments go at the bottom (usually) and you use colons for indents so the comments flow correctly. You're consistently failing in all these as well as the aforementioned blanking pages and subsequently adding irrelevant information. It's getting tiresome correcting formatting errors while you don't notice. --It's-a me,
- Refute it or shut up, I'm tired of your semantic bullcrap. I honestly tried to be impartial and hear your case, but like many Truthers before you you claimed to be able to present it but refused. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and was even intrigued by some of your claims but in the end you spat on my hand of friendship. Fuck you, and fuck your games. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You assert that the site in question is peer reviewed, you have yet to prove that case. You contest the article, yet fail provide compelling arguments, with sources, for your position. Instead repeat your assertions and simply edit the article to say whatever you want when you feel that you aren't getting your way. Why the ever-loving fuck should we continue? You have no interest in this "debate" so why should we? Why should we waste our time on someone who has no interest in arguing their own case? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are simply an astonishing liar. I rewrote your article and included abundant referenced proof that it is peer-reviewed by other scientists. You removed that article three times and each time repasted the exact same misinformation I had removed. Then you locked the page to prevent me from doing so again. You are a fraudulent liar who is arguing that people should disregard 70 different peer-reviewed papers because of a private internet blog with an anonymous author who calls them mean names. You're nothing short of a joke. No person with an iota of intellect would take anything you say seriously. Quantumhead (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Quantumhead
- "Rewrote"? You removed content you didn't like and then you replaced it with some 9/11 truth listicle crap and then tried an admittedly better effort of rewriting it (along with ridiculously poor formatting) but leaving out how well-known crank David Ray Griffin was part of it. And who's doing the name calling now? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO PRESENT YOUR CASE THAT WE'RE WRONG?!?!?!?! YOU HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY TO CALL US LIARS AND PROPAGANDISTS BUT NONE TO CITE THE CREDENTIALS OF YOUR SITE'S EDITORS??!!?!? NONE TO CITE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES OUTSIDE OF THAT SITE SAYING THAT IT'S LEGIT?!?!?! NONE TO ARGUE COHERENTLY?!?!!?!? AND YOU WONDER WHY I INSULT YOU, WHY I CALL YOU A MORON, WHY THE OTHER EDITORS WON'T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?!?!?! WERE YOU DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY??!!?!? ARE YOU JUST PLAIN STUPID!?!?!? DO I ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB FOR YOU?!?!!? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- To be fair, there's this guy the user cited. He got fired for "for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of the structural materials used to construct the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." Gee I wonder. And who'da thunk, it's a filthy blog too. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- You are damn straight I removed content. I removed all of your misinformation and replaced it with factually accurate, adequately referenced writing. See my edit (which you now appear to be pretending does not even exist):- Quantumhead (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC
- Which I edited my comment later. You know those edit conflicts you're likely experiencing? Yeah. Can you learn to format your comments and practically everything else!? It's really annoying you don't indent your comments nor do you sign with ~~~~. I haven't seen such incompetence from a user in a long time, especially after I posted a link to the help pages. Try using the preview button too while you're at it! What you did was whitewash the article and removed also sourced statements that should be factual (I checked the source statements and they don't seem wrong about reporting that this journal is begging for peer-reviewers or reporting on how they tried to debunk other 9/11 truther claims). I'm somewhat confident that David Ray Griffin writes for it too, though that statement is not sourced. Your edit, even if it wasn't a white-washing, still wouldn't have stayed because it's horribly formatted. Also, "factually accurate" is a redundant phrase, and that Architects for Truth and Engineering you're trotting out is a crank truther organization that parrot out common 9/11 truther canards. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with this article, Below is a list of sources which I believe contest the claims made by the article in question.
- http://www.journalof911studies.com
- http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#beyond-misinformation
- https://digwithin.net/about
- http://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm
- https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
- https://www.ae911truth.org
- https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
- I hope you will take some time out of your finite lives to consider my humble opinion. Thank you in advance and have a good day. --Written for Quantumhead by ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I almost fell for it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario Given that our friend here is now obsessed with blanking this talkpage to hide our points, I think it's safe to say that we won. Normally I avoid such declarations but when it comes to this kind of jackass I'm willing to make an exception here or there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well, I guess I have to hand him credit for not having me use my inevitable hat tip later. I think he lost the moment he opened his mouth to use autism as an insult. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
When the trustworthiness of a source has been called into question, the best thing to do is then cite that exact same source.NAPOLEON BONAPARTE DID 9/11 TO RAISE THE PRICE OF WINE LOOK IT UP SHEEPLE Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well, I guess I have to hand him credit for not having me use my inevitable hat tip later. I think he lost the moment he opened his mouth to use autism as an insult. --It's-a me,
- @LeftyGreenMario Given that our friend here is now obsessed with blanking this talkpage to hide our points, I think it's safe to say that we won. Normally I avoid such declarations but when it comes to this kind of jackass I'm willing to make an exception here or there. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- I almost fell for it. --It's-a me,
- I disagree with this article, Below is a list of sources which I believe contest the claims made by the article in question.
- Which I edited my comment later. You know those edit conflicts you're likely experiencing? Yeah. Can you learn to format your comments and practically everything else!? It's really annoying you don't indent your comments nor do you sign with ~~~~. I haven't seen such incompetence from a user in a long time, especially after I posted a link to the help pages. Try using the preview button too while you're at it! What you did was whitewash the article and removed also sourced statements that should be factual (I checked the source statements and they don't seem wrong about reporting that this journal is begging for peer-reviewers or reporting on how they tried to debunk other 9/11 truther claims). I'm somewhat confident that David Ray Griffin writes for it too, though that statement is not sourced. Your edit, even if it wasn't a white-washing, still wouldn't have stayed because it's horribly formatted. Also, "factually accurate" is a redundant phrase, and that Architects for Truth and Engineering you're trotting out is a crank truther organization that parrot out common 9/11 truther canards. --It's-a me,
- You are damn straight I removed content. I removed all of your misinformation and replaced it with factually accurate, adequately referenced writing. See my edit (which you now appear to be pretending does not even exist):- Quantumhead (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC
- To be fair, there's this guy the user cited. He got fired for "for publicly asking questions about UL’s testing of the structural materials used to construct the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings as well as UL’s involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." Gee I wonder. And who'da thunk, it's a filthy blog too. --It's-a me,
- HOW FUCKING HARD IS IT TO PRESENT YOUR CASE THAT WE'RE WRONG?!?!?!?! YOU HAVE THE TIME AND ENERGY TO CALL US LIARS AND PROPAGANDISTS BUT NONE TO CITE THE CREDENTIALS OF YOUR SITE'S EDITORS??!!?!? NONE TO CITE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES OUTSIDE OF THAT SITE SAYING THAT IT'S LEGIT?!?!?! NONE TO ARGUE COHERENTLY?!?!!?!? AND YOU WONDER WHY I INSULT YOU, WHY I CALL YOU A MORON, WHY THE OTHER EDITORS WON'T TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY?!?!?! WERE YOU DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY??!!?!? ARE YOU JUST PLAIN STUPID!?!?!? DO I ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO YOUR JOB FOR YOU?!?!!? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- "Rewrote"? You removed content you didn't like and then you replaced it with some 9/11 truth listicle crap and then tried an admittedly better effort of rewriting it (along with ridiculously poor formatting) but leaving out how well-known crank David Ray Griffin was part of it. And who's doing the name calling now? --It's-a me,
- You are simply an astonishing liar. I rewrote your article and included abundant referenced proof that it is peer-reviewed by other scientists. You removed that article three times and each time repasted the exact same misinformation I had removed. Then you locked the page to prevent me from doing so again. You are a fraudulent liar who is arguing that people should disregard 70 different peer-reviewed papers because of a private internet blog with an anonymous author who calls them mean names. You're nothing short of a joke. No person with an iota of intellect would take anything you say seriously. Quantumhead (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Quantumhead
We are right[edit]
The new user asked someone to assert this.
Here's why it's true: ya'll fuckers are 9/11 truthers. See also: the text of the article ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)