Both are from "truthers" and both come from the post Debunking 9/11.com is a PNAC front.
The first is from some guy called "John". His comment is technically spam, because it's just telling us about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” -- Arthur SchopenhauerYes, clearly being ridiculed means that what you say must be true. Just like saying "the moon is made of purple dinosaurs" or "gold is really blue cheese". Clearly being ridiculed for holding such a view means that what you say is true, it's the first stage of being true. Now all I need is someone to beat the crap out of me for saying one of these stupid comments and I'll be one stage further then the "truth" movement.
"1,000 Architects & Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation "Yep. Because in todays world, one thousand people is a huge number, I mean it's only 0.0003288827559417241% (July 2008 - 304,059,724) of the US population, or 0.00001494314817189223% (2008 number - 6,692,030,277) of the population of the world or 0.0046785814541031% of the population of Australia (2008 - 21374000).
More than 1,000 worldwide architects and engineers now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. After careful examination of the official explanation, along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent investigation into these mysterious collapses is needed.
To be fair if they were in say, the Vatican then they would be a powerful force because there are more of them then people in the Vatican, but that's irrelevant.
Compare that 1000, with the ~1.5 million people who are fans of this pickle. But I guess that means that the architects are more truthful.
Either way it's just an argument from numbers.
Perhaps there should be a list of architects and engineers who don't think that there should be a new investigation?
The second is from "anonymous". It's very much a disjointed rant which I shall make more disjointed by responding to it thusly:
There is no need for pseudo-scientific ranting of vectors or Newton's Laws of Motion.Wow, I never knew that I made a pseudo-scientific rant on the laws of motion. If someone can point out where I did, I'd appreciate it.
The JREF forum has debunked Newton countless times.I wonder which Newton this is? Perhaps some clarification is in order.
He also has not taken the million-dollar challenge.Maybe someone should tell him?
It is quite evident that 2+2=5 as shown on the JREF forum(a place to discuss pseudo-skepticism, denial, the obvious in an unfriendly and ridiculing way)This is the link to the debunking of the conservation of momentum...(the link was to a pile of shit by the way)
As far as I'm aware 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2
The towers fell the way they did because energy and momentum are never conserved.Yes... because 9/11 showed the world that thermodynamics doesn't exist.
Newton was a delusional pseudo-scientist who refuses to debate on the forum.Like the "million dollar challenge" quote I suggest someone tells him. If you happen to be in London I hear he hangs out in the Nave of Westminster Abbey. I believe he hangs out with people like Charles Darwin, William Thompson, 1st Lord Kelvin, David Livingstone, Ernest Rutherford and Clement Attlee. Say hi to them from me if you happen to go.
Some kooks and lunatics claim that he is no longer living without providing the link to the source. Without the link, we cannot deny, ignore, and ridicule the evidence presented, which are the three steps in the JREF debunking process.Yes, without those links those fools at the JREF will have to listen to us.
Let us put an end to these nonsensical discussions of the conservation of energy/momentum(both have been debunked, and shown to be religious beliefs) and move on to proving and disproving claims without the use of mathematics.Brilliant, I hate math, I shall give you 0.001% of all my savings for suggesting this... err... how do you figure that out again?
Perhaps I should pray to the gods of conservation of energy and momentum, I'm sure they'll help me.
If any fellow pseudo-skeptics enjoyed this ranting, then please do not open this link… (link removed)Yes, I did enjoy your rant, so I won't open your link. It's probably got something to do with the first comment or something.
So there you have it. I've responded to a couple of comments.