This Week in Conspiracy (22 Aug 2011)

You know, this torrent of goof is unforgiving and never lets up. Week after week I do this, and I honestly don’t expect anything at all (I’m not playing to the crowd or begging for attention or pity or anything). But it wears on you. In the past I have taken breaks, and I’m getting close right now, but for now, I feel compelled to slam my head into this ice cold bucket of surrealism once again and get my conspiracy on.

  • So, David Duke authors a vid, “Zionist Terrorism in Norway.” The author sounds surprised that people might be offended by anything David Duke says. The comments are a nightmare, but nowhere nearly as bad as Dave’s hair:

That’s it for now, folks. Getting ready for DragonCon and other events. Also, classes have started again, and my conspiracy theory class is getting off to a good start. Very excited.

RJB

25 Responses to This Week in Conspiracy (22 Aug 2011)

  1. IntrepidSol says:

    Curious to get your opinon on this as you mentioned the new 1,000.000 campaign for RememberBuilding7.org

    What do you think of the campaign and, most importantly, of the evidence driving the campaign for a new investigation?

  2. Bob says:

    IntrepidSol:

    I fart better science than these feebs have managed to put together.

    I hope this clarifies my position.

    RJB

  3. intrepidsol says:

    Actually I was hoping for a more scientific response. What part of their argument are you taking issue with?

  4. Bob says:

    Besides the premises and conclusions, only the evidence. Try me. Do you have new evidence that we haven’t seen so far? I’m always looking at new evidence.

    RJB

  5. intrepidsol says:

    Well first of all, regarding Building 7, How is it possible for 58 steel perimeter columns along with 25 core columns to be severed at the same time allowing the initial 2.25 seconds of free fall as admitted by NIST? The building fell with no resistance discernible from gravity alone for over 100 feet at the beginning of it’s destruction.

    Regardless of how long the collapse actually takes (that is an entirely separate argument, let’s go one at a time please) no building should be able to fall through itself without Any resistance from it’s underlying structure to impede it’s acceleration into free fall speeds, minus the use of some type of explosives to remove the framework, thus allowing gravity to pull it through itself.

    This happens at the beginning of the collapse as witnessed in the above video and examined thoroughly at the link below. Please in your own words, and in as scientific a manner as possible explain how this is possible?

    How could 80 core columns fail simultaneously due to asymmetrical scattered fires? What mechanism could possibly have enabled this except for synchronized explosives rigged to sever each of the 80 core columns within a 10th of a second of one another?

    Please explain this to me. How is this possible in your opinion?

  6. Bob says:

    I did stipulate NEW evidence for a reason. These questions have been answered at great length, and the mechanism is found in the NIST report, which was generated by numerous labs working on smaller parts of the larger problem of the collapse and converged on a single explanation. I’m not reinventing the wheel here.

    Your assertion that the fires were small and scattered are flatly wrong.

    So, what’s NEW?

    RJB

  7. Pacal says:

    David Duke is not simply a tasteless joke he is truly sick. Everypiece of racist rightwing huckering that he can buy into he buys into. He has even sold the Protocals. That election he took part in over 20 years ago that he lost was mainly amusing for all the excuses the racists dolts gave for voting for a racist dolt.

    He like so many of these trolls positively pants for an apocalyptic race war.

    As for your questioner above concerning building 7. Well the person is employing the same strategy as Holocaust deniers do on blogs and forums. the “I just have some questions gambit”, and then they repeat the same old debunked crap. I esspecially love the free fall speed mantra that is a dead “truther” giveaway.

    Nice to know the anti-vaccination liars are still at it. You would think after Wakefield’s well deserved taking down they would quiet down. Nope instead they up the lies.

    The Bahamas as ever since the discovery of a unusual beach rock formation, called the Bhimmi road, in 1968, (perfectly natural), been touted as everything from Atlantis to a space alien port, to a gateway to another dimension. Edgar Cayce the sleeping fraud / opps prophet supposidly predicted the finding of the Bhimmi road and said a lot of crap about Atlantis in his “sleep”.

  8. Pacal says:

    I forgot to add the Canada Free Press is a shill of the Tea Party which likes “taking” its “intellectual AIDS” bareback.

    Insults aside it is well known in Canada that the organization exists on American funding.

  9. Bob says:

    Yowza! But tell us how you really feel! :)

    RJB

  10. Bob says:

    Yeah, I agree that there is potential for so-called concern trolling, but everyone gets a shot at asking a question, and you know, maybe there’s something there that I havent heard. But so far not.

    It never ceases to amaze me how the antivaxxers dug in when Wakefield was exposed. It goes to show that they are committed to a position and not to the evidence. Wakefield is a clear example of that.

    RJB

  11. IntrepidSol says:

    Actually the NIST report does not explain or answer the questions I just asked you. If you believe it does, please support your contention with the source material. Please cite your proof if you will.

    As for “new” evidence. Let’s define “new” as evidence not discussed in the 9/11 commission report, such as any concerning Building 7 as it was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 commission report.

    Surely a skeptic doesn’t expect anyone to take their word for it on face value alone?

    Thank you.

  12. Pacal says:

    “Actually the NIST report does not explain or answer the questions I just asked you.” Not worth taking seriously.

    “As for “new” evidence. Let’s define “new” as evidence not discussed in the 9/11 commission report, such as any concerning Building 7 as it was not mentioned at all in the 9/11 commission report.”

    Why?

  13. jroach says:

    I don’t know if this is appropriate for this column but i dodn’t wanna make it a pm.

    I asked on the last thread, what is the difference between a conspiracy and a hoax?

    The only reply was “Whether or not you eventually confess.” To me, that sounds like the point in time at which you actually know it was a hoax (from the outside). Upon further reflection, the best parameter i can work out is whether or not you believe it yourself. It’s not whether you start it, because people start conspiracies all the time, purposefully so it would seem. The difference seems to be that hoaxes are carried out by people with a funny bone, while conspiracies are started by the paranoid mind (usually with a major bone to pick) who actually believes that his bullshit could be true.

    The reason i ask is that now i read this blog and several others on skepticism and debunking. Having seen the depths that Mercola,Truthers, Birthers, Fox News et al will sink to to write their garbage, i have no doubt that they fully know the bullshit they are schlepping around, and just don’t care. So maybe, hoax is a people-friendly conspiracy?

    Ps: Turns out the java type console isn’t bug, it’s my old-ass MS Word version at the hospital. Gotta do everything in Wordpad bleh.

  14. IntrepidSol says:

    Still waiting for a reply from Bob.
    @ Pacal you are entitled to your opinion, though you’ve not answered any of the questions either.

  15. Pacal says:

    The questions have been answered elsewhere. I’m are not here to do your research for you and neither is Bob. So why don’t you come up with something new?

    Until you do Bob will, I hope, not reply as you have said nothing he hasn’t or I haven’t read before.

    And please explain why we should follow your definition of “new”?

  16. Bob says:

    I’m not interested in your recycled, inane questions.

  17. IntrepidSol says:

    Questions about the crime of the century which launched two wars are in no way inane. Especially considering the massive amount of support for a new and independent investigation.

    My question again (feel free to answer it if you can) is,

    Regarding Building 7, How is it possible for 58 steel perimeter columns along with 25 core columns to be severed at the same time allowing the initial 2.25 seconds of free fall as admitted by NIST? The building fell with no resistance discernible from gravity alone for over 100 feet at the beginning of it’s destruction.

    Simply saying “this has been answered” and posting a link is avoiding the issue.

    Do you know which part of the NIST report is supposed to answer these questions exactly? Which NIST report are you referring too? Please provide the relevant passages and citations you are invoking.

    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/450-scientific-theory.html

    A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories. The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.

    So it appears though NIST admits freefall for 2.25 seconds, even their own computer simulation does not demonstrate this reality as witnessed in the video evidence.

    Thus, “The only evidence NIST provides to support their theory is in the form of a computer model. While it could possibly be argued that the model does show some buckling occurring over eight stories, it most certainly does not show a period of free-fall. So NIST’s theory has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever for the fact of free-fall. In other words the NIST theory cannot explain key empirical data.”

    Also you had mentioned that,

    “Your assertion that the fires were small and scattered are flatly wrong.” , again please be so kind as to provide support for your argument.

    “There appear to be no photographs of Building 7 from a time shortly before its collapse that show large active fires. The photograph below, taken in the afternoon, shows the upper half of Building 7 from the south. There are no signs of fire. ”

    http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

    Here is a link demonstrating the severity of raging fires in steel framed skyscrapers, all of which maintained structural integrity and did not implode into their own footprints.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

    How is it that the fires on just a few floors of building 7 (please provide counter evidence if you believe otherwise) could manage to sever 80 steel support columns at once? What mechanism could achieve this global failure across the entire breadth and depth of the structure as would be required for free fall collapse to occur?

    • Bob says:

      Huge swathes of this are lifted directly from ae911Truth. This is what I meant by recycled. Do this again without attribution and you’re gone. I should delete this, but it illustrates exactly what I’m concerned about, that this is not original and adequately address by others.

      Now if you will excuse me, I have a class to teach.

  18. IntrepidSol says:

    I was quoting sources. Hence the url’s and the ” ” marks around the text I was referencing. What exactly are your rules for posting on this site? All I asked is that you provide the links to the evidence you are citing. Perhaps you have misconstrued my questions?

  19. Pacal says:

    Thank you for another cute pic of a fuzzy little beastie!!.

    • Bob says:

      Yes, I’ve reached the “I’m not interested in having this conversation again” point.

      • Ken says:

        “Conversation”? You do the word an injury. Spambots are better at varying their texts than the recent rounds of truthers. Heck, the Eliza program was better at simulating a conversation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,574 other followers

%d bloggers like this: