Hate Mail - Sources
| Sender: | jeremy caci <caci.jeremy@gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Sources |
| Type: | Corrections |
| Added: | Jun 08, 2010 |
| Sent to: | Edward L Winston |
If you're going to have a site that is footnoted (indicating actual source material) please make sure to actually have working links associated with said notation. I think it is upsetting to ignore some of the most obvious evidence related to Sept. 11th however there are some claims on both sides that are not documented. What is unacceptable is attempting to debunk some of these theories with no actual notation. I'm sure many don't follow up on your sources but a significant number of them are either from discredited sources (ie. popular mechanics and NIST) or are not actual links to be investigated. The credibility of the website therefore is damaged.
Thank you.
Jeremy Caci
lol
[ Jeremy doesn't seem to understand that #1 Internet sources don't last forever, and I'm not going to spend every day checking the thousands on the site; I fix broken ones when reported. #2 NIST and Popular mechanics haven't been discredited, unless you're a conspiracy theorist who lets others think for you. Yes, my reply to him was just "lol" because there's no sense in arguing with him. I have a feeling though, he may just reply again with something even funnier, so check back. ]
I love how asking you to accurately footnote your sources is comedic to you... and you still think you have credibility? You're just as bad as those conspiracy theorists, you debunk their claims with more lies.
I'll say it again, lol. Have fun with your delusions.
[ See, he can't stop himself from replying. I'll keep replying to keep up the funny. ]
Now i'm the one laughing out loud. You have 4 sources from the website "firestorm" arguing against a WTC 7 demolition when none of the pages are found. I'm just wondering if you plan to update these citations because they're misleading. Also, quoting Wikipedia is questionable to say the least. But I understand, no constructive criticism for a make-shift website trying to masquerade as legit.
Hey man, thanks for showing me exactly which sources no longer work instead of just sending me a diatribe about how you think everyone is wrong, except you.
But that's not what I stated at all... Since the first email I sent I asked you about your citations... I didn't specifically focus on certain ones because I didn't really think you would respond and it was more a general suggestion... I never at any point said you were wrong and I was right... it just seems as though you try to discredit all these various points, but in some cases your own sources are suspect or not accessible. Isn't the whole point of putting this site together to debunk these theories? That doesn't really work when you don't have accurate citations.
Also, I was unable to find any reference to the study done by Steven Jones and others regarding the active thermitic material found in the rumble of the twin towers. This was published relatively recently (in the last year or so) in The Open Chemical Physics Journal and I saw no indication of the when your site was last updated so I wasn't sure if you responded to these new findings
>> But that's not what I stated at all... Since the first email I sent I asked you about your citations...
All you did was repeatedly tell me they're just wrong, what am I supposed to do? I'm not going to argue with someone who's absolutely convinced otherwise. I'd rather waste my time doing anything else.
>> I didn't specifically focus on certain ones because I didn't really think you would respond and it was more a general suggestion...
You suggested that NIST and Popular Mechanics were wrong, which is not even remotely true.
>> I never at any point said you were wrong and I was right...
I guess I read "and you still think you have credibility? You're just as bad as those conspiracy theorists, you debunk their claims with more lies." differently than you do.
>> it just seems as though you try to discredit all these various points, but in some cases your own sources are suspect or not accessible.
The point of the site is to talk about points conspiracy theorists are making, it's not my fault almost all are fantasy. I wrote the article nearly 3 years ago, web citations don't last forever. NIST is only "suspect" according to you.
>> Isn't the whole point of putting this site together to debunk these theories? That doesn't really work when you don't have accurate citations.
Thanks for reminding me what the point of my web site is. Hey, if you want to check thousands of sources across the site everyday to make sure they're still working, you go right ahead. I fix sources when they're reported.
>> Also, I was unable to find any reference to the study done by Steven Jones and others regarding the active thermitic material found in the rumble of the twin towers. This was published relatively recently (in the last year or so) in The Open Chemical Physics Journal and I saw no indication of the when your site was last updated so I wasn't sure if you responded to these new findings
I've been meaning to get that up, in the mean time there's a wiki article for that:
http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-projects-911/
In short, it's just paint, the chemical traces are for paint, and the "journal" in question isn't a real peer review journal, you pay $800 to get your work published and that's it.
Well thank you for opening my eyes sir, you are a truly great American.
[ USA! USA! USA! ]