Sneak preview of things to come…

A month ago, I sat down with Richard Gage at a local 9/11 Truth conference. The organizers of the event put up the video of that interview today. Here is part one of three. You can find the other ones for yourself, if you are so interested.

The site is pretty interesting:

The interviewer, Bob J. Blaskiewickz [sic] teaches a course on “conspiracy theory” and “pseudoscience” at the Georgia Tech Institute of Technology [sic].  Though he has been challenged to feature one of the 1,500 + Architects and Engineers in either a live or Skyped debate of the evidence he has declined to test his knowledge in front of his students with any of the 1,500+ experts.  Gee, I wonder why….  Perhaps it is because if he were to attempt to defend the thoroughly discredited “official” conspiracy theory of the US government in a debate with a  representative from, that he would be exposed completely, as having  little to no knowledge or understanding of the forensic evidence that he presumes to  debunk in his classes.

To his credit he did behave in this interview, though many of his questions were simply reciting long discredited arguments from fellow pseudo debunkers, such as Ryan Mackey or Jonathan Kay.  It remains to be seen whether or not any of the incredible forensic evidence that is brought forward in this interview or in the subsequent presentation of “Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction” will ever find a way into any of the “Skeptical” Inquirer’s media catalog of magazines, podcasts, and videos online.

Apparently, I’m a complete bastard, but you don’t see it here. I did in fact invite a 9/11 Truther to my class, which works well enough for me. I’m pretty sure I told him that, but that’s fine.

The funny thing is that I turned in an 8,000-word article last week to Skeptical Inquirer, which will be edited down to 3,000. So, not every word can possibly be printed, but I will include a link in the edited version to this interview. You’re welcome. I just didn’t want anyone to think they had shamed me into including parts of this evidence–it is the bulk of the article I already submitted. I behave even when I’m not being filmed.



64 Responses to Sneak preview of things to come…

  1. Hi Bob,
    I don’t recall the word or insinuation of you being a bastard anywhere in the article you referenced. No need to frame our reporting in such a manner. Everyone is more than welcome to follow up with the evidence as brought forth by Mr. Gage in the interview and examine the evidence for themselves at (or if you have 2 hours to devote to developing a balanced perspective on the seminal event of our time please watch “Blueprint for Truth” online)

    There are quite a few interesting comments about this video already on Would you or anyone who supports the “official” story be willing to present your version of the events to the many experts in engineering, architecture, structural engineering, metallurgy, physics, chemistry, et al there?

    Reasoned and informed debate is the alchemy required for science to evolve after all.


  2. “I did in fact invite a 9/11 Truther to my class, which works well enough for me. I’m pretty sure I told him that, but that’s fine.”

    You actually never answered my question as to who you had invited to represent the Truth movement.

    There is a massive difference between the expertise displayed by say a representative of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) and an attendee of the “truth” con, which dealt with ufo disclosure, alternative medicine and alt history, and quite honestly they were mostly complete cranks. The “truth” con is a whole ‘nother ball of wax and is not to be confused as having anything to do with the 9/11 Truth movement whatsoever.

    Requesting a faux “truther” from those ranks would not suffice for providing a fair representation of the 25,000+ years of technical experience as displayed by the representatives of AE911Truth.

    So the question again is which “truther” did you invite. And in the interest of fairness are you willing to feature an official representative of AE911truth to present their findings in your classroom?


  3. From Blogulator at

    Skeptics? How about Pseudoskeptics?

    Many of the so-called “skeptics” organizations and websites tend to steer away from controversy, and 9/11 is a classic case of such. On, for example, all of the glaringly obvious lies and impossibilities associated with the official version are ignored; in their place are instances of relatively insignificant fluff and trivia. Wikipedia…? Unbalanced. We all know about the self-proclaimed “experts” that infest the JREF forums and similar. We’ve all looked at “9/11myths”, “Screwloosechange” and a bunch of similar “debunkers” that spread fraudulent material masquerading as “science”. We know about the appalling, embarrassingly “incompetent” work of NIST. We have all read the dry-labbed, scientific hairball known as the “9/11 Commission Report”. We all know about how the mainstream media treat the topics of not just 9/11, but other events in which, common sense tells us, elements within the “powers-that-be” are up to their proverbial necks in criminality.

    On account of the cherry picking and wholesale omission of vital facts/evidence by the “debunkers” and “skeptics”, it appears that these people/organizations are toeing the agendas of other parties, having to steer well away from the scientific method in the process. What are these people trying to hide, and why? What is so scary as to have to trash one’s own “investigations”, launch misleading websites, render certain subjects taboo, and routinely use ad hominem techniques against those who ask the “wrong questions”? What is so outlandishly terrible about the facts of 9/11 that has caused so many “debunkers” to turn out in such force, presumably to prevent the facts from surfacing, re. the awareness of the general populace? If 9/11 was an act carried out by “militant Muslims”, then why the lies, the wild coincidences, the unlikelihoods, the impossibilities/miracles, the coverups, the changing stories, the omissions, the fraudulent reportage, and more?

    Overall, the 9/11 debunkers generally can be categorized under the “pseudoskepticism” moniker: that is because they tend to follow the following traits (taken from the wikipedia entry):

    (1) The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
    (2) Double standards in the application of criticism
    (3) Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
    (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
    (5) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
    (6) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
    (7) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
    (8) Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim.

    For the amount of effort spent in trying to debunk, or discredit, or shut down anyone involved in 9/11 research and investigation, it appears that there is a mission, a purpose that unites all these so-called “skeptical” parties. I won’t speculate as to what that mission might be, let’s leave that to the reader…

  4. Ken says:

    I like the line “having little to no knowledge or understanding of the forensic evidence”. Maybe the local crop of advocates is especially poor, but asking “how do you explain that” over and over doesn’t give me the impression that the questioner has any understanding of the forensic evidence. Quite the opposite, really.

    Then there’s the usual problem – “usual” in the sense that the same thing comes up with Shakespeare, and Stonehenge, and the Kennedy assassination – which is that once you’ve decided to reject mainstream science (history, archaeology, engineering, literary analysis, …) there’s really no limit on what happens next.

    My own 9/11 theory, for example, involves a Gray Reptiloid attack using UFOs and antikerning grenades. You can see this in the videos by the way the smoke billows, but all other evidence is being suppressed by the government, aided by useful idiots such as Bob. Clearly my theory is supported by as much evidence as any of those proposed at the 9/11 Truth conference, although their theories are just part of the smokescreen and coverup.

  5. tanabear says:


    I’m not sure what point you are trying to make it seems you have a limited understanding of the scientific method and even a more miniscule understanding of 9/11. When a crime is committed it is necessary to gather and examine the physical/forensic evidence to determine what happened. It would be unwise to come across a crime scene and concoct out of thin air an entire scenario of events before looking at any evidence. This, however, is exactly what the government did in relation to 9/11. They told us who did it, how they did it, what happened and who we needed to kill within days of the tragedy,

    The 9/11 Truth community is not making an outlandish claims when it comes to 9/11. We simply believe that explosive charges can blow-up buildings and other structures. This is well within the mainstream of scientific understanding. It is quite a mundane statement, akin to saying water will wet you and fire will burn.

    The official account makes arguments and reaches conclusions that are not tenable. In the most salient of events, conclusions are not even reached at all. For instance, NIST stops their examination of WTC1,2 at the point of collapse initiation. The actual destruction of the towers is not analyzed. Why not? NIST admitted in their Final Report on WTC7 that it did enter free-fall for 2.25 seconds or 8 stories(100 feet). Yet their model shows no such free-fall occurring and is therefore invalid. In fact, in their investigation of WTC7 they did not examine any physical evidence.

    The problem with the official story is that none of it can be proven via the experimental method, which is the arbiter of competing scientific hypothesis. We do know that explosive charges can bring down steel-framed high-rises. We don’t know that fire can in the manner that occurred on 9/11.

    Ken: “once you’ve decided to reject mainstream science…there’s really no limit on what happens next.”

    True. Just look what happened to the world after Copernicus and Galileo rejected mainstream science.

    • Ken says:

      This type of misdirection is of course only to be expected from the smokescreen group that is the “9/11 Truth” community. History will not look favorably on you, when the real events are finally revealed – if indeed they ever can be, with “9/11 Truth” and the CIA working in lockstep to suppress the truth. Antikerning, I tell you, antikerning. Nothing else can explain the exact speed of the fall and the curling of the smoke. If you think you can, let me see your “proof.” No one has ever met this condition, nor accepted my challenge for open debate. Just do that one thing. You cannot.

  6. Well said Tanabear. Thank you.

  7. grandmastershek says:

    What I love about truthers is that they demand that every single individual debunk every nonsensical claim. Yet, they pretend it hasn’t already happened. Its all smoke an mirrors since day 1.

  8. GIve us just one example of the so called “non sensical” claims as made by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    What I love about pseudoscientists, faux skeptics and fake debunkers are their repeated use and dependence on logical fallacy, derision, and distraction to avoid the evidence they either don’t understand or cannot refute.

    Show me you’re not one of these folks and provide some documentation of your “assertions”.

    Also it has not already happened though you pretend it has.

    So go ahead, prove me wrong. Point out one “non sensical” claim from the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

  9. So this is what passes for skepticism from the pseudo debunker crowd huh? Crime of the century is being exposed as the Biggest lie of the century and in place of a serious discussion of the facts and their implications we get pictures of kittens…

  10. tanabear says:


    No, we ask that the government provide solid evidence for their claims. In fact, our standards are pretty low. We merely want them to demonstrate what they say is possible. Neither NIST nor anyone else has experimentally verified any aspect of their pre-collapse analysis and NIST is largely silent on what happened during the collapse. Bazant has his “crush-down crush-up” theory but it lacks evidence and it can’t be replicated experimentally. Until this is done there is no reason to believe in the official story. At this time, those who promote the government’s version rely solely on negative evidence to make arguments for their claims.


    I used to post at the James Randi Educational Forum(JREF). It seemed that the followers of James Randi only knew a few things. How to post images from the failblog, LOLcats, and laughing dogs in the forum and how to put you on “ignore”.

    You see dogmatic skeptics know certain things to be true or false a priori. There is no need to investigate and test claims scientifically. Their superior reasoning ability tells them what is right and wrong.

    “Galileo wrote to Kepler wishing they could have a good laugh together at the stupidity of ‘the mob.’; the rest of his letter makes it plain that ‘the mob’ consisted of professors of philosophy, who tried to conjure away Jupiter’s moons, using ‘logic-chopping arguments as though they were magical incantations.”
    Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy

    In our day, the “mob” consists of skeptics, debunkers, Bush crazies, the mainstream media etc. who attempt to conjure away free-fall, Newton’s third law, and physical evidence with the same ‘logic-chopping arguments’.

  11. Joe says:

    I used to see truthers as some “wrong” type of thinkers who needed “correcting”. Now, after reading a good few thousand posts of muckery (drop in the bucket) i can only understand them through the lens of psychopathology, like some weird sort mental illness born of the farking anonymity of the internet.
    Like some odd offshoot of Mormonism that tries only to convert Jehova’s witnesses they want to argue people who will never agree. Masochistic Mormons.

    PS. My brother was a mod at Something Awful at the time LOLcats were invented there. I never thought it would take off but now i see the purpose: every truther post needs a lolcat response.

    • tanabear says:

      The truthers are in a way the wrong type of thinkers. The vast majority of the population can be easily swayed by government and media propaganda. For others it takes more reinforcement and a sustained effort but generally propaganda works on the majority of people. However, there is a small segment of the population that appears to be completely immune to the brainwashing attempts of big brother and the Ministry of Truth. Such people are called truthers.

      This causes much consternation and frustration amongst the powers that be. Despite an avalanche of lies, distortions, misinformation, cover-ups, ad hominen attacks, misrepresentations etc, the truthers remain a bulwark that will not be moved. Once it is ceded that propaganda will not work against the truthers, their only other option is to promote scientifically valid theories. This, however, they cannot do because they have no scientifically valid theories. So the impasse remains.

      The government has accepted the fact that propaganda does work well enough to keep the population complaisant. Their goal now is to merely ignore the truthers hoping that most of the sheep will never come out of their sleep.

      “The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is the truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.”
      Aldous Huxley.

      • Thank you again for speaking with such eloquence and reason. I only hope that some of the young minds subjected to Bob’s illogical pseudoskepticism might stumble on this blog, do their own research and understand what a shabby propagandist resorts to when he cannot discuss the facts or evidence of the crimes he covers up with gleeful disregard and deplorable ethics.

      • Bob says:

        Hitler kitteh is not amused.

      • tanabear says:


        Thanks for the encouragement.

        When it comes to 9/11, as with other issues, some people care about discovering the truth and others simply don’t. When you are debating with someone who has other priorities than the discovery of the truth, don’t be surprised that they seem impervious to the evidence. Skeptics by and large don’t care about the truth and thus debating with them is largely a waste of time, There are so many people who are amenable to the truth that we should concentrate our efforts on them.

        Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has over 1,500 signatories who have gone on record demanding an investigation into 9/11. How many architects and engineers have gone on record stating that they agree with the official explanation offered by NIST and Bazant?

  12. So “Joe”, can you engage in a conversation of the evidence whatsoever? No? I didn’t think so. As for anonymity of the internet, be a little less hypocritical and share your full name if you don’t mind. Let me guess, because I am a psychopath for questioning the government’s illogical and scientifically impossible version of events I must be crazy or any other list of absurd ad hominem assaults heaped from those who consider lol cats to be an appropriate response to evidence that demands a new investigation of the crime of the century.

    Since you claim to have studied “truthers” please present to me one fact you dispute as provided by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Just one fact is all I am asking. Can you manage this feat? Surely your experience in studying a “good few thousand posts” has given you a basic awareness of the evidence as presented by no?

    Don’t worry I will wait… Just one fact..

    • Ken says:

      Ignore Camron’s challenges, Joe. He cannot even engage me in debate. This is to be expected as he is part of the disinformation campaign and probably is paid by the same groups that set up al-Qaeda to take the fall for 9/11 (the astute will know who I mean – for those who do not, study the significance of Iksander). Camron is of course wise not to debate, as his own “theory” is ridiculous and impossible based on the evidence of the tapes. Antikerning is the only possible physical explanation for what happened that day. The truth will come out, but perhaps only decades after all those who benefited are gone. See the Pentagon Papers. No one has ever accepted my challenge.

      • Let Joe speak for himself “Ken” and if you have a challenge you want to issue, please do. I do not have my “own” theory. I am presenting evidence as gathered and offered by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

        I’m paid by no one and in fact have been more transparent about who I am than anyone from your camp whatsoever. Case in point, what is your full name sir?

  13. Pacal says:

    Love the Kittens and cats! reminds of when I was young and a neighbour of mine kept cats and that pic of a cat with baby rats crawling all over it reminded me that he also kept rats that got along great with his cats. They were best buddies! Shortly before me and my parents left he got two large dogs and they also became best buddies with the cats and rats.

    Sorry I don’t have film.

    Anyway this is sure more fun than conspiracy twaddle.

    So more cute pics of cute furry beasties!!

    RIGHT NOW!!!

  14. More cats! Each one proves your inability to reason or deal with the evidence that exists. Your blog is beginning to look like a case study in denial. Keep em coming! It becomes ever more obvious who is avoiding a real discussion of the facts here.

    For those willing to think and reasonably asses the situation in an unbiased manner please examine the evidence as brought forth by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on their website

    Thank you.

  15. assess, sorry freudian slip after dealing with the folks on this board I imagine 😉

  16. Ken says:

    “Camron” my challenge is simple. Explain how the towers could fall without antikerning technology. No controlled explosion could do it. The largest ever controlled implosion demolition was of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit, which was only a third the height of the towers and a fifth of the square footage of the WTC complex. We have no instances where buildings the size of the WTC towers were destroyed by implosions, therefore the buildings could not have been destroyed by implosions. The same logic shows that neither a plane crash nor a fire could have caused the destruction, “tanabear” even says this. Naturally she does so as part of the disinformation and smokescreen put up by the “9/11 Truth” group to draw people’s attention from the real cause of the collapse, since those responsible want to focus people on controlled implosion. But we see how exactly the same logic that shows the planes filmed hitting the towers and the huge billowing fires visible in the building caused the collapse, also rules out controlled implosion, with mathematical precision. Whether “tanabear” and “Camron” are involved with the highest levels of this disinformation campaign, or are just “useful idiots” who are repeating the lies fed to them, is not obvious. Note that they have not denied being paid to spread the “9/11 Truth” version of the story. But logic tells us that plane crash, fire, and explosives could not have caused the collapse, and thus only antikerning could have done it. Antikerning also explains the patterns of the smoke in the video. No one has ever accepted this challenge or proved the antikerning theory wrong. The antikerning theory is even espoused by noted persons with doctorates in engineering.

    • Ken says:

      that shows the planes filmed hitting the towers and the huge billowing fires visible in the building caused the collapse

      This should be “did not cause the collapse.” Sometimes when surrounded by the lies of “9/11 Truth” and the CIA/Mossad/Reptiloid axis it is easy to become confused. The important thing to remember is that there has never been a controlled implosion or explosive demolition of a building as large as the WTC towers, therefore explosive methods cannot bring down such large buildings, just as we know that plane crashes and fires cannot destroy such large buildings.

  17. @ Tanabear, you are right I will save my energy for persuading the young relatively untainted minds at Ga Tech who unfortunately may have to encounter such illogic from a “teacher” like Bob. Bob you should stick to a field you actually have some mastery or understanding of.

    @ “Ken” you are making zero logical sense whatsoever again.
    Just because a building the size of the towers had never been imploded before does not mean it is therefore impossible. By those standards people would never have built the trade towers for they would have been taller than any buildings ever before built upon constructing them.

    • Ken says:

      “Camron” do not be inane. If as you say “Just because a building the size of the towers had never been imploded before does not mean it is therefore impossible” then the same is equally true for a fire. Yet the “9/11 Truth” conspiracy makes the argument that no plane crash or fire had ever before caused the structural collapse of a building the size of the towers, therefore the plane crashes and subsequent huge fires seen in the videos could not have caused the collapse. This is an exact parallel argument and if the one is false then so is the other. However the proper conclusion is that both are correct arguments, and neither fire nor explosion could bring down buildings the size of the towers.

      Of course this is yet more evidence that the “9/11 Truth” version with its fairy-tale explosions is all part of the coverup of the real cause of the collapse. They have been assigned the most difficult part in this charade, as they must adopt the illogical position that fire COULD NOT but explosion COULD. The government position that fire COULD and explosion COULD is at least logically consistent. However as I have shown with mathematical precision the only correct explanation is fire COULD NOT and explosion COULD NOT, as evidenced by the fact that neither has ever brought down a building as big as the WTC, therefore antikerning. QED.

  18. Bob says:

    You mindlessly repeat the same logical equivalent, Camron, and he’s mocking you. Truthers ALWAYS say: “This has never happened before. Fire has never taken a steel skyscraper office building down before.” That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. In fact, by recognizing that point, you just invalidated that Truther argument! You don’t get to make the same logical mistake, Camron.

    Oh, the irony is delicious!

    I teach critical thinking, you see. I don’t only have mastery, I have PhDstery. 🙂


    • Ken says:

      I stand revealed before the world. Frankly, I would have thought the first one would have done it; it has been more than a little surprising (eye-opening, frightening, instructive…) to see Camron respond over and over, without any apparent recognition of what was happening. It even seemed that he might also be playing, and at a much higher level since he was in character with his previous posts – but no, it turns out that it wasn’t a character…

  19. Bob says:

    Wow. That was really surprisingly easy. It’s like the logical equivalent of walking a blind person into a wall.

    He’ll probably convince himself that he did not completely humiliate himself. He’s pretty committed to this belief. But I am rapt in anticipation to see his reply:

  20. Ken says:

    I do owe tanabear an apology, however. I said in one of my bouts of inanity up there that tanabear used the bogus “fire has never destroyed a building this large” argument. That is not correct. Looking back at the “Hey maw I’m famous” thread comments, the people using that argument were posting under the names Dan Bland, Dan (who may or may not be Dan), Joe Heller, and – whadayaknow – Camron Wiltshire.

  21. I saw your supposed set up coming a mile away. I answered knowing full and well you have no place to hide in this argument. So where does the burden of proof lie, with the evidence.

    You brought forward a fallacious argument, that being the towers supposedly could not have been demolished in a controlled fashion because no hi rise of equivalent height had ever been demolished before. Just because no one has ever attempted to demolish a building the height of the towers does not mean that they were not demolished. You would only need to perform a forensic investigation of the evidence. Independent researchers have done this and found overwhelming evidence of controlled demolition.

    Somehow then presuming that if I state the above that it equates with well than fires could have possibly brought down the towers even though no steel frame hi rise has ever collapsed due to fires is absurd on it’s face and not equivalent whatsoever. I feel bad for you guys, even your last ditch juvenile tactics blow up in your face.

    Buildings have been demolished before and the implosions of the towers and Building 7 mimic the countless controlled demolitions that have occurred point by point.

    What you dont’ have is any, repeat any examples of steel frame hi rises collapsing due to fire alone.

    If you can’t understand the illegitimate premise of your faux argument, really nothing can help you. Bob you should try your argument with a lawyer sometime. See if they dont’ laugh in your face at this ridiculous rhetorical tautology that has no basis in reality.

    Example. Can you name one steel framed hi rise that has ever collapsed due to fires?? Just one?? I will wait.

    So again you guys can hi five yourselves all you want, you’re still illogical and wrong entirely.

    But of course you could take this to the experts but you wont and you know it. Bob keep posting kittens all you want. You’re covering for murders, I don’t know how you sleep at night honestly, let alone pretend you have outsmarted someone with yet another logical fallacy which was again easily refuted.

    Oh also, I or any of the 1,500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be happy to debate you in front of your students or any professionals at Tech. In fact they would be more than happy to discuss their findings with any of the Engineers or Architects at Ga. Tech.

    So then you have already turned this down once, will you continue to duck and hide and sling mud from behind the safety of a keyboard and excessive kitten pictures? Will you man up or shut up?

    I think we all know the answer.

    • Bob says:

      I think we do.

      BTW, I deleted your comment other comment b/c it was simply reposting someone else’s stuff that was already here. My coeditor agreed. Don’t.

  22. It laid out exactly why your arguments are bogus. I figured why retype what has already been said and again ignored.

    So can I post pictures too or is that not allowed here?
    Lemme guess you get to choose what does or does not get posted.

    Anyhoo I’m tired of this. You have been shown up again as entirely unskeptical and a poor loser.

    My challenge still stands. Will you or anyone from Skepticality defend the “official” conspiracy theory in a debate with a representative from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Or can you find one professional engineer or architect at Ga Tech or in the whole world who will debate them?

    By the way, your favored source note, Mackey, He has been completely discredited. Anyone who wants to actually read the refutation of his elaborate propaganda. Here is the link (Bob you may want to read this to spare yourself from further embarrassment)

    Have your co-editor read it too please.

    • Bob says:

      “Lemme guess you get to choose what does or does not get posted.”

      I’ve only ever removed one comment. And yes, you are in my sandbox. No shitting in my sandbox.

      “Or can you find one professional engineer or architect at Ga Tech or in the whole world who will debate them?”


  23. So only you can shit in your litter box huh? No worries, I was just planning on posting graphics relating to the conversation at hand, rather than say a million pictures of cats.

  24. tanabear says:


    You ask, “Can you name one steel framed hi rise that has ever collapsed due to fires?? Just one?? I will wait.”

    In their press release upon issuing their Final Draft report, NIST noted, “This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building…Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings…”

    The previous comments from Bob and Ken relate to an earlier comment I made about skeptics having no interest in the truth. Ken says that fires could not have brought down the towers and that explosives couldn’t have brought down the towers because neither had ever destroyed a building of that size before. Now playing semantic word games is not really a good guide for discovering the truth. It is probably better to look at the evidence and conduct experiments. For instance, the great scientist Robert Boyle(1627-1691) was one of the first put a deal of emphasis on the experimental method to unlock the secrets of nature. And look how well that has served us over the centuries. But he didn’t put much faith in semantic word games. Now it doesn’t take much to see the nonsense being spouted here, but for the undiscerning reader I’ll bite.

    1) I’m going on vacation. I plan on traveling to France. I’ve never been to France before so it’ll be the first time in history that such an event has occurred. I’ll take a plane to get there.

    2) I’m going on vacation. I’m going to the moon. I’ve never been to the moon before so it’ll be the first time in history that such an event has occurred. I’m going to stand on the roof of my house and leap into outer space and land on the moon. Then I’m going to jump back down to earth again.

    It’ll be the first time that either of those events have occurred. But we certainly wouldn’t treat them as being equally likely. Why not? Me traveling to France by plane doesn’t violate or contravene any of the known laws of physics. Somebody leaping into outer side on their own without propulsion and landing on the moon would. The first scenario is comaparable to a building being destroyed with explosives. The second scenario is comparable to the official conspiracy theory.

    So when truther says that it is the first time(and last time) in history that a steel-framed high-rise has been destroyed by fire that is true. But it doesn’t really capture the significance of the event. It’s not just that it is the “first time”, but that its occurrence would contravene the known laws of nature.

    Real scientists set out to prove their theories via the experimental method, not semantic word games. Hence my previous point that skeptics have no interest in the truth.

    p.s. Of course entire cities have almost been completely leveled by bombs before. The firebombing of Dresden in WWII and the destruction of Hamburg left those cities in ruin. So explosives are certainly capable of destroying three buildings on 9/11. Fire? No evidence yet.

    • Ken says:

      Now playing semantic word games is not really a good guide for discovering the truth.

      I quite agree. I assume that you only just started reading this blog? Because you didn’t mention this a couple of weeks ago on the “Hey maw” thread, when three (perhaps more) people were saying that fire could not destroy a steel-frame building, because fire has never before destroyed a steel-frame building. That would be Dan Bland, Dan, Joe Heller, and Camron Wiltshire. Feel free to correct Camron here, the others don’t seem to have found this thread – unless of course they’re posting under some other handle.

      Thank you as well for giving another illustration of this type of specious argument, with your moon example. I think it’s fairly clear now that any argument of the form “it never happened before therefore it can’t happen” is silly and should rightly be ignored.

      • Bob says:

        Here’s one for the ages. If steel structures aren’t vulnerable to fire, why do they steel skyscrapers have fire retardants applied to the steel? Looks? Jeez.

  25. Again, Thank you Tanabear. You have cut right through to the heart of the situation.

  26. Just endless sophistry from you guys. for those who want to know the truth.

    • Ken says:

      Checked it out, Camron. They also seem to think that fire couldn’t have destroyed the WTC because it’s never happened before. I expect tanabear will be over there correcting their error as soon as she finds the time. She’s probably busy with the “Hey maw” thread here, and correcting Dan and Joe and that guy Camron.

      Of course, you could also head over to ae911truth and correct their error. After all, up above you did recognize that that line of reasoning was invalid, right? You know, when you cleverly recognized the trap I was setting, and decided to step in it anyway to… to… well, I’m sure you had a good reason, though it’s not exactly like throwing yourself on a grenade to save the rest of the squad, is it?

  27. Uh Ken, Did you not read the whole bit about semantic word games and they not being equivalent to actually testing evidence in the real world to support your hypothesis?

    Oh that trap you set, the one that you sprang on yourself and Bob? Right, Yeah I walked in and walked right out with another point for team truth versus team pseudoskeptic. You could just scroll up and reread the comments, they will explain for any onlooker who is able to logically process information who is and is not correct here. Here you can have the last word. We have already proven ourselves on this thread.

    I’m out. Got work to do.

    Peace in the middle east.

    • Ken says:

      Anyone else remember Alan King? He had a routine, something like “How not to have an argument with your wife.” The last one went something like,

      WIFE: “I’m never speaking to you again.”

      HUSBAND: (looking her straight in the eye): “Promises, promises.”

      But do enjoy your work, whatever that is.

  28. tanabear says:

    Bob: “If steel structures aren’t vulnerable to fire, why do they steel skyscrapers have fire retardants applied to the steel? Looks”

    Steel structures can be damaged by fire and that is why fire retardants are used, to limit the damage. The fact that fire can damage steel structures does not imply that fire can destroy steel-framed high rises in the same manner that WTC1,2 and 7 were destroyed. .


    The argument that no steel-framed high-rise has ever completely collapsed due to fire might be incomplete, but it is not necessarily invalid. A better way of stating it might be, no steel-framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire and 10 years after 9/11 no one can give a satisfactory explanation for how that occurred. You write, “it never happened before therefore it can’t happen” is a silly argument. Some skeptics and debunkers make the argument that just because it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean that it can’t. True, but the burden is on those who believe the official story to prove that it is possible. This has not been done.

    “Observation 2[The building completely collapsed] runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.”
    John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics) on NIST’s report on WTC7.

    • Bob says:


      And you don’t know how this “thinking” shit works. You are telling me that a building that was hit by fully fueled airplanes at high speed was brought down by unknown weapons that have never been used for these purposes. Or by explosives. You can’t get your story straight on that one either. The burden of proof is clearly on YOU, even if you don’t understand the work of the thousands of people who worked on the project of analysis. Which, clearly, you don’t and won’t bother trying.

      I don’t have to debunk every UFO that appears. The person who is making the extraordinary claim has to prove that it was piloted by little green men. Because we don’t default to wild-assed speculation. You are the UFO-unknown weapon-coverup whackjobbie.

      This thread is closed.

  29. […] many he will only engage in questions as long as his smoke and mirrors routine seems to be working. Once someone pierces his miasma and brings the conversation around to the cold hard empirical facts,… Bob blinks out his own cognitive dissonance when in person and is nearly unintelligible whilst […]

  30. […] he will only engage in questions as long as his smoke and mirrors routine seems to be working. Once someone pierces his miasma and brings the conversation around to the cold hard empirical facts,… Bob blinks out his own cognitive dissonance when in person and is nearly unintelligible whilst […]

  31. […] he will only engage in questions as long as his smoke and mirrors routine seems to be working. Once someone pierces his miasma and brings the conversation around to the cold hard empirical facts,… Bob blinks out his own cognitive dissonance when in person and is nearly unintelligible whilst […]

%d bloggers like this: