Andy Paquette, Mask Science, Big Lie? |523|

Hint: one doesn't usually curtail the spread of truth as if one's life dependent on it unless 1) you are lying and 2) you are somehow benefitting from the lie but others will not (the lie consumers).

not sure I agree. isn't this pretty common... wacky-religions/cults/commies/etc.
 
Now, there are people who don't wear masks to intentionally upset people.

This is a tough one... cuts both ways, eh?

Mother in dothan alabama in 1958... " honey, don't you dare go back there and sit with those colored people in the back of the bus... you're going to upset the bus driver and all these good people"

Civil disobedience pisses people off... but cowardice is not a virtue.
 
My client group is not at risk. I do not consider merely contracting covid to be a risk. Why would it be?

Contracting COVID is important because that is how pandemics spread. That is why your opinion is at odds with the CDC, who is interested in the entire US population, not in a tiny subset of the US population which is youngish and relatively well off. One of the ways to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, is to reduce the spread of the virus among the 95.5% of the US population who are not your client base.

I just got done telling you that I am fully aware of what other lines of business are experiencing, that is Medicare and Medicaid because my counterparts in those LOBs share their data and findings in committee. I also stated that I attend seminars with counterparts from other companies. Do you not read what I write?

I did read that. But that doesn't give you the special knowledge you talked about - "I have the raw data and the summarized data. I have the actual numbers" - for those people most likely to be affected by the pandemic. It just gives you the same kind of data that the CDC has, except yours is in a more limited form.
 
Ah I see. Part of the problem is that you don't know what a fact is.

I small minority of engineers, most with no experience with that type of construction, have an opinion as to how to interpret some observations, some of their observations are not even accurate.

There really are no facts involved in the 9/11 CT theorist engineers at all. Sometimes they they attempt to propose a fact and are found to be presenting wives tales/misinformation. One of those for example is when they say there was no evidence that airplane hit the Pentagon...So it must have been a missile! That is phony. There were plenty of airplane bits everywhere inside and outside the building. I've seen photos of them and I personally know people that saw the airplane hit the building.

Just because you don't understand how a building falls down doesn't mean the CIA put dump truck loads of thermite (because that's what it would take) in the building.

As I see it, you are the one emotionally invested in a certain perception and story. You hate the US and its government. So you want to pin a horrible crime on it. You probably even feel a kindred spirit with the terrorists.

I understand fact as a specific statement about the actual state of events based on verifiable empirical evidence.

For example, the symmetrical horizontal free fall of the WTC7 is a fact, one that can be easily verified by anyone interested. This is a fact that, along with many other verifiable facts, is absolutely incompatible with the theory postulating spontaneous fall because of the fires, yet fully compatible with the theory postulating controlled demolition via thermite.

And empty, fervently emotional, faith-based, ad hominem diatribes is all what you have against it, Eric. You can't produce a detailed, specific refutation to the fact-based contolled demolition theory.

I think, I should leave you alone on this topic. There is no point to debate an ardent devotee.
 
This is a tough one... cuts both ways, eh?

Mother in dothan alabama in 1958... " honey, don't you dare go back there and sit with those colored people in the back of the bus... you're going to upset the bus driver and all these good people"

Civil disobedience pisses people off... but cowardice is not a virtue.

That's a very helpful analogy. Taking a seat on a bus is a trivial activity in itself, but not in the setting of much larger civil rights violations. Unbeknownst to a northerner, who sits wherever they feel like on the bus, invisible lines have been drawn that make their choice of seat a "civil rights violation" or "civil disobedience", even though all they did was find an empty seat. That would pretty much capture my "wtf?" reaction to the mask wars, while also making sense of the glares.
 
masks are an outward signal of your willingness to comply
Baloney.

The generalizations and histrionics around here are astounding. Following any law, societal norm, etc. can be construed as a pejorative form of compliance. Wearing seat belts, following traffic laws, wearing clothes, paying taxes, etc. You all comply with dozens of such "freedom limiting" norms everyday. Sheep, just like your neighbors. Its called society.

This whole thing feels like you are majoring in the minors. There are real threats that you could be pouring your attention into. The notion that we've been softened up by wearing masks is pretty benign by comparison.
 
I understand fact as a specific statement about the actual state of events based on verifiable empirical evidence.

For example, the symmetrical horizontal free fall of the WTC7 is a fact, one that can be easily verified by anyone interested. This is a fact that, along with many other verifiable facts, is absolutely incompatible with the theory postulating spontaneous fall because of the fires, yet fully compatible with the theory postulating controlled demolition via thermite.

And empty, fervently emotional, faith-based, ad hominem diatribes is all what you have against it, Eric. You can't produce a detailed, specific refutation to the fact-based contolled demolition theory.

I think, I should leave you alone on this topic. There is no point to debate an ardent devotee.
Nope. It is not a fact. It is a good illustration of what I'm talking about. It is merely your perception that the building fell straight down, albeit one shared by others psychologically predisposed to blame the US govt for conspiring to bring about anything bad that happens.

You are not a structural engineer. You were not there. Same goes for your YouTube and chatroom buddies.

"WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Nor was the building in free fall as CTers are always saying it was;

"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity"
https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

All of the CT questions are answered at the link, but they/you won't accept the answers simply because the are invested in the CT. And because a government agency produced the report.

It's ok - even necessary - to dispute the government if you have real evidence and facts on your side. It's entirely another thing to create an alternate reality that is contrary to the government just for the sake of being contrary to the government and based on nonsense posed as facts.

Facts and rationality have nothing to do with the CT position. Indeed, CTers use a thin veneer of pseudo-facts and pseudo-logic to disguise their completely batshit kooky concept of how events took place.
 
vaccines reduce infections, even for the Delta variant. And not only do they reduce the number of infections, but even the minority which end up getting infected, may be less likely to transmit the infection to others.
You are so ignorant. The great Alex Berenson says, quoting gov.uk, that vaccines are worthless, damaging, and insane. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-covid-vaccines-will-keep-you/

Glad I have my natural immunity. It just keeps getting stronger. Your gene therapy? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
Nope. It is not a fact. It is a good illustration of what I'm talking about. It is merely your perception that the building fell straight down, albeit one shared by others psychologically predisposed to blame the US govt for conspiring to bring about anything bad that happens.

You are not a structural engineer. You were not there. Same goes for your YouTube and chatroom buddies.

"WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Nor was the building in free fall as CTers are always saying it was;

"The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity"
https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

All of the CT questions are answered at the link, but they/you won't accept the answers simply because the are invested in the CT. And because a government agency produced the report.

It's ok - even necessary - to dispute the government if you have real evidence and facts on your side. It's entirely another thing to create an alternate reality that is contrary to the government just for the sake of being contrary to the government and based on nonsense posed as facts.

Facts and rationality have nothing to do with the CT position. Indeed, CTers use a thin veneer of pseudo-facts and pseudo-logic to disguise their completely batshit kooky concept of how events took place.

HAHAHAHAHAHA :D

I said I'm giving up on you on this topic, Eric... but damn it, I just can't stand the temptation and will reply to you one more time.

This time, it is indeed the last one. Honestly. ;)

Eric, do you sincerely think you brought something I - or all other people from the 9/11 Truth movement - do not know already?

All 9/11 Truth is based on a highly detailed, evidence-and-reasoning-based criticisms of the NIST's interpretations - interpretations, not facts - of the empirically established facts of the 9/11 events, which include free fall. You may see here the 9/11 Truth's refutations of the very exact interpretative statements you quoted above:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...911truth/101-free-fall-and-building-7-on-9-11

As it always goes with any "authority", it is effectively a con, a confidence trickstery based on proclaming one's controvertible interpretations "established facts" - which they are not.

I wouldn't waste my time explaining it to your average conspiracy denier. But what is so hilarious, even tragicomical, about you, Eric, is that you are an enthusiastic cospiracy theorist and a vehement conspiracy denier simultaneously. To be precise, you are a conspiracy theorist when you like the conspiracy theory being presented; but you turn into a conspiracy denier the very second someone present a conspiracy theory not so likeable to you. You willingly appeal to "authority", as all conspiracy deniers do, when you agree with its statements, as it in the case of the NIST and the 9/11 false flag; yet you willfully reject the "authority", as all conpiracy theorists do, as soon as it makes a statement with that you disagree, as it is in the case with the CDC and the Covid-1984.

And every time, you fail to see the sheer irony of your own self-contradicting and self-defying stance.

Unlike you, hardcore conpiracy deniers like Malf and Silence are, at least, consistent in their pro-establishment devotion and unwavering faith in the official "authorities" and their public claims - as well as I am consistent in my anti-establishment rebellion, rejecting all these "authorities" and all their claims without hypocritical selectivity. Your way is a blatant special pleading being elevated to the level of the method and the principle.

I leave the last word to you, if your will is to reply. I don't care about your replies anyway.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHA :D

I said I'm giving up on you on this topic, Eric... but damn it, I just can't stand the temptation and will reply to you one more time.

This time, it is indeed the last one. Honestly. ;)

Eric, do you sincerely think you brought something I - or all other people from the 9/11 Truth movement - do not know already?

All 9/11 Truth is based on a highly detailed, evidence-and-reasoning-based criticisms of the NIST's interpretations - interpretations, not facts - of the empirically established facts of the 9/11 events, which include free fall. You may see here the 9/11 Truth's refutations of the very exact interpretative statements you quoted above:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/free-fall-acceleration

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...911truth/101-free-fall-and-building-7-on-9-11

As it always goes with any "authority", it is effectively a con, a confidence trickstery based on proclaming one's controvertible interpretations "established facts" - which they are not.

I wouldn't waste my time explaining it to your average conspiracy denier. But what is so hilarious, even tragicomical, about you, Eric, is that you are an enthusiastic cospiracy theorist and a vehement conspiracy denier simultaneously. To be precise, you are a conspiracy theorist when you like the conspiracy theory being presented; but you turn into a conspiracy denier the very second someone present a conspiracy theory not so likeable to you. You willingly appeal to "authority", as all conspiracy deniers do, when you agree with its statements, as it in the case of the NIST and the 9/11 false flag; yet you willfully reject the "authority", as all conpiracy theorists do, as soon as it makes a statement with that you disagree, as it is in the case with the CDC and the Covid-1984.

And every time, you fail to see the sheer irony of your own self-contradicting and self-defying stance.

Unlike you, hardcore conpiracy deniers like Malf and Silence are, at least, consistent in their pro-establishment devotion and unwavering faith in the official "authorities" and their public claims - as well as I am consistent in my anti-establishment rebellion, rejecting all these "authorities" and all their claims without hypocritical selectivity. Your way is a blatant special pleading being elevated to the level of the method and the principle.

I leave the last word to you, if your will is to reply. I don't care about your replies anyway.
Last word - you pathologically appeal to fringe kooks and get stuck there because of your psychology. You are hopeless.
 
Be careful making such accusations when living in your own glass house.

Neither of my houses is made of glass. My city apartment is made of metal and concrete; even windows are made of plastic, rather than of glass. My dacha - beyond city limits, far from the main road, at the ege of the forest, with the lake nearby - is built of wood, with windows, again, being plastic.

Oh, and if you refer to my anarchism... ;) I think, I should answer to you recurrent request to point to a large-scale anarchist society. My answer is: in the current moment of history, there are no such societies; and all anarchic societies that existed historically were small-scale. But if you want to use it as an argument against my position, you fail: I'm a genuine progressive - not a regressive deceptively wearing the mantle of "progress", like a snowflake wokester or a scientism adherent. This means, I argue for the people choosing something that does not exist in the moment (if I did, it would be conservatism), neither something that existed in the past (then it would be regress / reaction), but something that may exist in the future - and will exist, if we ourselves actualise it with our own willful decisions and actions.

Such was the position of democratic revolutionaries of 16th - 20th centuries, like the participants of the Dutch, English, American and French Revolutions (to a lesser degree, also Russian, German, Austrian and Chinese Revolutions). They had no example of a large-scale democratic society before; all they had as examples were small Ancient Greek polises or the early Roman Republic. Yet, they tried to create something radically novel, something that was not created before - and they succeeded... well, more or less.

The anarchism is for the 21st century, what democracy was for 16th - 20th centuries: a radical novelty, a societal-scale creative project aiming to actualise what was not yet actualised. The creative project of democracy was relatively successful; the time for a new one came today.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top