On Being the Only Treasonous Cockroach in the Room

The 9/11 Truth event with Richard Gage last night was exhausting. I was literally the only one who was skeptical, as evidenced by a show of hands at the end of his talk. (The title of this post comes from something I heard an audience member shout, nothing that you heard from anyone on the stage.) I’m spent, I think, right now. So instead of posting This Week in Conspiracy tonight, here’s a picture of my cat, Gavin, asleep this afternoon:


23 Responses to On Being the Only Treasonous Cockroach in the Room

  1. Ken says:

    You really think you can fool us with that obvious Photoshop job? What are you trying to hide?

  2. Bob says:

    Damn you. You saw through my little ruse!


  3. Pacal says:

    You don’t look anything like a cockroach.

  4. ResearchGuy says:

    You left out the part where the show of hands BEFORE the talk did indicate 23 were not entirely convinced of the alternative account, reduced to only three after. The fact that you are unmovably convinced of the official story shows something other than skepticism.

    It is difficult to get people to come listen to something that challenges their beliefs. That’s just human nature. At other events our supporters have done better in that regard than at the event you attended. Our website shows the numbers:


    People should apparently be very skeptical of whatever you choose to report.

  5. Maybe one of the reasons why some perceive that there is a rise in so called “conspiracy theorists”, is because of the problem with all the violations of the fundamental laws of physics with the “official 9/11 story”. For example, WTC 7 fell at total freefall for over 100 feet of its fall; a physical impossibility if anything was in the way. The only possible way to achieve freefall is to have some outside force remove all supports at virtually the same time. The NIST fire induced progressive collapse cannot explain this. Or the presence of iron microspheres in the dust found by the USGS, indicating temps high enough to melt steel must have been present. Or the eutectic formations and melting steel found by WPI professors as outlined in appendix C of the FEMA report, but the sulfur source never solved. The problem is that the office and jet fuel fires burn 1000 degrees colder than what’s needed to melt steel. And of course the high tech nano-thermite , a military explosive /incendiary found in the dust. What is that stuff doing there and why weren’t these things addressed?
    Because of these, and many more physical impossibilities with the official story, no doubt critical thinking people that understand basic science will be labeled “conspiracy theorists”. Perhaps in the future students will be instructed to call the basic laws of motion, “Newton’s three conspiracy theories of motion”.

  6. Bob says:

    That you, Richard? Either way, welcome.

    I was not going to omit that change from the article–the AE911 lectures are known for that survey. But the AE911 site does confirm that I was the only one who was basically alright with the findings of the investigation.

    I think that a most interesting number would be how many engineers are persuaded by the presentation. That’s the demographic that counts, really.

    • ResearchGuy says:

      > I think that a most interesting number would be
      > how many engineers are persuaded by the
      > presentation. That’s the demographic that counts,
      > really.

      Far more architects and engineers have taken a public stand against the official story than have taken a public stand in favor of it. Most of those who say they agree with the official story don’t even know that there is another side to it, didn’t know about Building 7 at all, or didn’t know that it came straight down at close to freefall acceleration throughout its collapse and at precisely freefall acceleration for more than two seconds.

      You can’t properly evaluate a story or explanation by critiquing only what’s being presented — you have to know what isn’t being discussed, also. The official “investigations” all started on the assumption that “Al Qaeda” was responsible and all we need to do is understand *how*. NIST’s John Gross illustrated this principle with unfortunate clarity when he said all the videos showed that the lower section of each tower was are unable to arrest the momentum of the falling sections. The question to be answered is why that would be the case since the lower sections were designed to support the upper sections, with a safety factor, through hurricane force winds, with so little swaying that few people would become seasick.

      The devil is in the details. Assumptions are deadly. “Studies” where the conclusion is predetermined, only one hypothesis is on the table, contrary evidence is censored, and no independent peer review is allowed, are not scientific studies.

  7. Daniel Noel says:

    Evidently, Gage flies too high for you: 2 full hours of observation, reason and science at the level of high school is indeed a lot to absorb, not to mention that many people who have no clue about 9/11 get overwhelmed with emotion before the end and simply tune out.

    No, you are not a treasonous cockroach. Or at least your failure to get Gage’s presentation does not prove it. A better test would be for you to understand—or refute—the 9/11 baby step (www.911babystep.com). If you fail this 6th grade hurdle, then indeed readers will have to wonder about your intellectual abilities and your sincerity.


  8. Bob says:

    I’m totally basking in the love here. 🙂

  9. Bob says:

    I really don’t think that it is appropriate for me to comment any further on this, as I am writing about it for an outside patry. I’m sure that you will understand.


  10. Eva James says:

    Bob is obviously just doing what he is paid to do:

    LIE and DENY.

    Those are his only choices if he wants to keep his job.

    At those two things, Bob, you’re doing great! I’m sure you’ll get a promotion.

  11. Pacal says:

    Didn’t take long for the True Believers to show themselves. I’ve never been impressed with how convinced people are by presentations and debates because that ussually only indicates how effective a debater or polemicist is. There are all sorts of rhetorical tricks one can use. the fact that 9/11 conspiracy woo-merchants know this tricks of deception / misdirection impresses me not at all.

    The purvayeurs of 9/11 crap most cooly and deliberately lie and distort. Having read far too many of their lying books I don’t feel the need to take them seriously at all. I am amused that some of the falsehoods and distortions that 9/11 weavers of fantasy have been repeated here.

    I particularily enjoyed the comment about steel melting which indicates the most sublime level of ignorance.

    • Daniel Noel says:

      Pacal writes very ambiguously. (S)he is obviously mocking and belittling a group of people, but it is hard to distinguish if her/his target are the 9/11 censors or the 9/11 truth-seekers.

      At any rate, maybe (s)he’ll care to turn the 9/11 baby step (www.911babystep.com) into something funny.


      • Pacal says:

        Yes that website was hilarious. So much lying and woo in such a short space. Tjhe stuff about building 7 having little damage was esspecially hilarious.

        THe ability of 9/11 woo-merchants to lie / distort contuinues without letup.

      • Daniel Noel says:

        Pacal is going too far too fast, peddling high school level stuff while not mastering the 6th grade http://www.911babystep.com. Her/his criticism thereof indicates that (s)he better review the official U.S. report on Building 7.

        But now this would require a college-level intellectual effort.


    • ResearchGuy says:

      What was wrong with the comment about steel melting? I don’t think you even know what was being referred to. Did you look at any of the sources he alluded to? We are not referring to an unfounded presumption that the steel had to melt for the towers to come down. That presumption, by the way, was expressed publicly soon after 9/11 by structural engineer Chris Wise, who was in no way challenging the official story. Of course, Wise was dead wrong to suggest that jet fuel and office fires could have melted the steel. But according to USGS, the RJLee Group, and others, iron was molten and formed into microspheres during the destruction of the World Trade Center. Please explain that without any further ad hominems or handwaving.

      The frequency with which logical fallacies are being brought to bear on this page in an attempt to discredit scientific findings that contradict the official story is just staggering from a group of people who apparently consider themselves to be rational skeptics. Skepticism that is consistently applied only to one side in a debate — and misapplied, at that — is not really skepticism, but rather denialism and sophistry.

      • Pacal says:

        Thanks for the laughs. I am familar with Gage and he is another 9/11 woo-merchant liar / fantasist. Your comment about hand waving and ad hominems is hilarious considering how 9/11 woo-merchants engage in this sort of stuff by the barge load.

        Just a question do you think that the OWG or the Illuminati are behind the attack? Or is it the Masons?

        As for logical fallacies the 9/11 woo-merchants use them in droves.

        Oh and you are aware that a wood fire can melt cooper and tin to produce bronze. Oh and have you heard of potential energy?

        Thanks for the ignorance.

        Oh and please explain why if the video is anything to go on the buildings began to crumble at the point of impact. I trust you don’t doubt that the planes hit. All that video you know.

        If you guys want to fantasize about conspiracies go ahead. Although the flavour of the week may be something else. Why not look for the 6th or is it the 60th sniper at the Kennedy assasination.

      • ResearchGuy says:

        Pacal’s comment is riddled with fallacies and evasions:

        – Ad hominem fallacy (“You’re lying!”)
        – Bare assertions (“You’re lying!”)
        – “You do it too” fallacy (Even if I do, at best that makes our debate a draw; it doesn’t defend your point)
        – Avoid the question by asking an unrelated question (“Who do you think is behind it…”)
        – Appeal to emotion (same point), or guilt by association (There are people who make false claims who also agree with me about 9/11, therefore my viewpoint on 9/11 must be false)
        – Non sequitur (melting points of copper and tin are irrelevant to the melting point of iron)
        – Handwaving (“Have you heard of potential energy”)

        As a matter of fact I have heard about potential energy. I understand that when it is being fully converted into kinetic energy — as when an object is in freefall — none of the gravitational potential energy is left over to do any work.

        – Argument from ignorance (“explain why if the video is anything to go on the buildings began to crumble at the point of impact”)

        Pacal ends the comment with another set of appeals to emotion and guilt by association. Pacal’s comment surely approaches the theoretical maximum possible number of fallacies per 100 words, since it takes some minimal number of words to even express a thought.

  12. Brijet Brazi says:

    It is true the skeptics here are clearly only skeptical of non-governmental bodies. Despite the countless times we have found the government to be lying they would rather roll over than actually do something about a corrupt system. Welcome to America- don’t question the government or you are an outsider an unwelcome here.

    Remember that according to W. Bush “you are either with us or against us”- don’t mind the logical fallacy of the argument, just submit.

  13. Pacal says:

    Daniel thanks for the laughs. Like so many woo-merchants you just can’t help it. You must distort.

  14. Pacal says:

    Research Guy thanks for more laughs. You just don’t get it. I have nothing but bottomless contempt for your position. A rational debate with you guys makes about as much sense as a debate with a Creationist.

    Your list of fallacies and evasions is hilarious in that 9/11 woo-merchants engage in them all the time.

    I consider your position about as worthy of debate as one about is the world flat? I also can’t take you seriously when I know your spouting crap that been refuted over and over again.

    I went to your website and I concluded very quickly that you are purvayeur of falsehoods. A debate with you is a waste of time and your string of falsehoods has further convinced me of it. But you have been worth a laugh.

    • Daniel Noel says:

      Let us give Pacal the credit (s)he deserves: (s)he has no peer to discern falsehoods, fallacies and evasions. (S)he has no peer either for not substantiating her/his assertions, at least on this thread.

      Now her/his allusion to creationism is remarkable. Creationism is supported by the objective evidence that species reproduce into themselves and is a good first approach to biology. Modern biologists simply tagged evolution onto it because it explained better some evidence that lay people generally do not understand.

      In contrast with creationism—the theory that bees reproduce into bees and birds into birds—the official 9/11 fairy tale makes no sense from beginning to end, starting with the concept that Building 7’s disintegration looks like a demolition but can only be caused by an office fire because the U.S. government has so stated.


  15. It’s obvious why Bob needed a break here. It’s a considerable amount of energy required to maintain this level of cognitive dissonance for a sustained amount of time, let alone as a lifestyle/career choice.

Leave a Reply to ResearchGuy Cancel 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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: