I’ve been a little busy recently, by which I mean really a whole lot busy and how. Hey, serving the New World Order isn’t easy! You try it!
Best headline of the Week:
“Richard Gage Talk at Royal Institute of British Architects Ignites Firestorm“: Royal Institute of British Architects collapses symmetrically into its own footprint at free-fall speed. Thermite suspected.
Before It’s News invents a flag for a state called “Jew England.”
At ATS, “A Test to Show You Have a Weak Mind.” You pass (that is, fail) it by writing the test.
Conspiracist cult leader may face fine in Australia. I like Australia.
Conspiracy theorists often fear technology. Canada Free Press apparently thinks a “smart grid” is “SkyNet.”
The Truth movement vastly overestimates its importance: “Mankind’s future is dependent on our understanding that 9/11 was a false flag event committed by a small faction of criminal traitors who control the governments of America, Israel, and England.”
Conspiracy theories kill: South Africans who believe AIDS was engineered less likely to use condoms.
Here’s a new one. Anthony Weiner secretly converted to Islam. Tweets dick-pics. From Salon.
David Aaronovich was at the London Richard Gage event (or at least for a stop on it) and met an old friend.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy redefined. Just because the federal government offers to buy (repeatedly) flooded land does not mean that they flooded it in order to get it cheap. You ass.
You know, I have found a lot of antisemitism in the 9/11 Truth community lately. I wasn’t expecting that. Perhaps as the movement has waned only the really fantasy prone have stuck with it?
FLIR images used to debunk 9/11 commission and NIST, detect ghosts.
Jon Stewart calls out conspiracy mongering on FOX. Because it’s hard?
O NOES! TSA screeners are getting cancer from the naked body scans. Implausible on so many levels including the fact it is impossible to establish this type of causality without a controlled study.
30,000 barrels of plutonium on the wall, 30,000 barrels of plutonium…a false flag nuclear operation?
Dean Haglund’s The Truth Is Out There has premiered.
Is George Soros stacking the courts? By explicitly encouraging lawyers to be able to pick judges based on merit? Explain how that works again.
UPDATE! AAAAAAAH NONONO! This is an old version of this post! The one I spent my evening typing up is gone! GONE! So, you will have to settle. However, if you come up with any good theories, please feel free to post them in the comments. Damn it.
RJB
Skeptical Humanities 
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy redefined. Just because the federal government offers to buy (repeatedly) flooded land does not mean that they flooded it in order to get it cheap. You ass.
Especially since the Feds could get it a whole lot cheaper simply by ending the Federal flood insurance program, which only exists because there aren’t any private companies willing to insure the land. Same is true of most of the Florida coast and hurricane insurance.
Bob, what part of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s forensic presentation “Blueprint for Truth” can you refute based on physical evidence of the crime scene?
Just all of it.
That was easy. Ask me another.
Name one point in Mr. Gage’s presentation Blueprint for Truth which you have seen once I can verify (whether you understand it or not I can’t say) with which you take issue. Provide for me a rational and skeptical argument that refutes his findings.
Bonus points if you can do so without resorting to the known and diabolical tactics of Ad hominem, Red Herring, Distraction, or other favored forms of Obfuscation as predictably employed by propagandists.
In other words, no cats, no character assasination, and no logical fallacies. Is this challenge to much for you?
I’m only asking for one point here. Let’s see what you got Bob.
Remember you have to deal with the evidence, if you can’t just paint with a wide unskeptical brush any publication that promotes evidence you do not want to consider. That would be highly unscientific and would support your bias prevents you from considering opposing perspectives if they are not granted publication by “official” bodies only.
I’ve already included a link below which you either obviously did not read or understand (most likely the former) so I will just place their refutation here for you and everyone else to read.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html
Many “debunkers” maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious “proofs” below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:
[ the paper can be obtained here ]
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
The scientists in the paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips.
The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1]. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can’t create such uniform highly engineered materials.
The paper is bunk because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed vanity publication.
There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal.
There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal.
Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. “Debunkers” of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the “debunkers” have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4]. In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny.
The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.
The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.
Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.
Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?
The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.
According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.
Every “debunker” argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.
References
[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Available from: click here
[2] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. [Accessed February 7, 2009]. Available from: click here
[3] The Scientist blog. Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/
I’ve done it over and over. You’ve sent my answers out to all of your friends. I’m done. My giving you answers and then you saying “give me answers” does not constitute a debate. Hey, but at least you are copying and pasting vast expanses of text. Sure beats thinking.
RJB
When you can’t deal with evidence, discredit, insinuate, deride and of course avoid analysis of the evidence that refutes your claims.
Bob do you understand what nano-thermite is? You are sick man if you think there is anything humorous whatsoever about this substance being found in the dust of the destroyed towers (1, 2 and 7!) It shouldn’t be in the WTC dust at all. Remember Richard Gage told you that personally a month ago.
Here is the video, you should probably, I dunno, do some research into Richard’s claims… He is providing more than ample extraordinary evidence to support his extraordinary claims.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-23/video-richard-gage-aia-interview-skeptical-inquirer-0
And here is more information about Nano-Thermite.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html
As Richard told you, there is no way that this nano tech weapon could have formed from a gravitational collapse as you had offered. It is created on a scale 1000 the size of a human hair in a precise and uniform ratio throughout the samples collected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jTSlc2njEw (~6:30 mark)
The fact that you could so flippantly dismiss suppressed evidence in an unsolved mass murder is unnerving. Remember even the FBI admits Bin Laden is not (was not) wanted for the crimes of 9/11.
KSM was waterboarded ~183 in 30 days (6x’s/day on average) times turning his brain to mush and there is no independent confirmation of him having admitted to the crimes.
But of course you are not so much interested in the truth are you Bob.
Bob doesn’t have any evidence. He just says that the government’s story is more feasible. Even when FEMA says its best hypothesis is highly unlikely.
He also says the most prominent bit of evidence he has that 9/11 happened the way it was “officially ” reported was that al qaeda supposedly admitted to it. Bob knows the way that confession was extracted was under extreme torture , and admits that torture is not a valid means for getting any sort of fact out of anyone water-boarded over 100 times and nearly killed.
Instead of meeting fact with fact , he’ll just drop a kitten face and lump-some anyone who has any evidence of this being a false flag attack with people who are into crazy conspiracies.
I wonder if Bob knows any history? If he did, perhaps he would know that The Gulf of Tonkin Event was a false flag attack instigated by the US that never happened. Just google it. We sent countless Americans to Kill innocent vietnamese, people over something our own government fabricated.
Its important because our country is responsible for murdering over one million Iraqi civilians. Soldiers are committing suicide. 53% of Iraq’s children are orphaned. When its your relative being sent to die for nothing then maybe you’ll pay attention.
Bob doesn’t have any evidence. He just says that the government’s story is more feasible.
Nope. But it does happen to be not implausible, unlike the magic pixie dust hypothesis you guys trot out incessantly.
Even when FEMA says its best hypothesis is highly unlikely.
Unlikely is not impossible, you realize. Nanothermite is laughably implausible and in every way a bad fit for the data.
He also says the most prominent bit of evidence he has that 9/11 happened the way it was “officially ” reported was that al qaeda supposedly admitted to it. Bob knows the way that confession was extracted was under extreme torture , and admits that torture is not a valid means for getting any sort of fact out of anyone water-boarded over 100 times and nearly killed.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
Oh noes! Canada is in on it now! Eeek!
Also, I agree waterboarding is execrable and gives bad info. And again, you are very bad at being in other people’s heads. Honestly, the Gitmo atrocities never entered into my formulation of the cause.
Instead of meeting fact with fact , he’ll just drop a kitten face and lump-some anyone who has any evidence of this being a false flag attack with people who are into crazy conspiracies.
This IS a CRAZY…no wait….CrAzY!!1eleventy!!! conspiracy. And “any” evidence isn’t enough. You need unbefreakingievably robust evidence to unseat the best hypothesis so far, and you haven’t. At all. In any way. You have one article in a pay-to-play journal with dust that has no provenance and is so bad that the editor resigned he was so embarrassed that it had circumvented normal publishing practices. Mega-huge-shameful-fail.
Oh, also:
I wonder if Bob knows any history? If he did, perhaps he would know that The Gulf of Tonkin Event was a false flag attack instigated by the US that never happened. Just google it. We sent countless Americans to Kill innocent vietnamese, people over something our own government fabricated.
I’ve forgotten more history than you’ve ever learned. The Gulf of Tonkin is an example of someone interpreting ambiguous data in the way that they want, a very human practice that you live daily, clearly (except in the case of 9/11 the data is not “ambiguous”, only “above your head”). There was a war in French-Indochina long before we got there. It’s not something we “just made up.”
But let’s say that you are right, that we did in fact fabricate Vietnam. That has nothing to do with 9/11. You still have to show that 9/11 is fabricated. You have not given me logic. You have given me an analogy. Don’t mistake that for evidence of your claim.
Its important because our country is responsible for murdering over one million Iraqi civilians. Soldiers are committing suicide. 53% of Iraq’s children are orphaned. When its your relative being sent to die for nothing then maybe you’ll pay attention.
If you get close to illustrating how this is at all relevant to the thermite hypothesis, please wake me up.
RJB
Nanothermite is laughably implausible and in every way a bad fit for the data.
Especially in comparison to antikern.
The spinmeister at it again. Njoki never said “Vietnam didn’t happen”, those are your words. Again you stoop to mischaracterization in order to avoid inconvenient information for your pseudo arguments.
Here is Robert McNamara the Secretary of Defense under LBJ describing how this event “didn’t happen” from the film “Fog of War”.
So who would know better than? You a presumptive fauxskeptic or the man in charge of defense of this nation during the Vietnam war? Obviously this is a rhetorical question.
You guys missed the best conspiracy story of the week. Alex Jones went off on an epic rant about how the NWO smokes DMT to get in touch with demons and aliens and other extra-dimensional entities. I think he managed to alienate everyone in his audience that has a positive opinion of psychedelics, and from the looks of it he very nearly had a stroke.
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/alex_jones_dmt_elves_want_the_elites_to_kill_us_all/
I hear it’s epic. But I can’t find it.
RJB
Wow. He is on the moon. How do people take him at all seriously?
Why do people take him seriously? Well because he says things that some people want to hear. Confirmation bias.
Yeah, but…man the propensity to believe is always suprisingly strong. It’s hard to be surprised anymore. Yet somehow he does it.
God those 9/11 groupies never stop. I just wonder when they are going to produce the witnesses to the many, many weeks / months of prep work done to prepare the buildings for demolition. Destroying a building by controled demolition takes a huge amount of prep to say nothing of tons and tons of explosive. tens of thousands of people worked in the World Trade Center even at night and in the early morning their were thousands in the building how could they have missed it? It is simply implausible.
As for the Gulf of Tonkin incident(s). Those are a minefield of ambigious data and stories.
By 1964 the USA had already tens of thousands of military advisors and support in South Vietnam aiding the South Vietnamese government. The North Vietnames were aiding the Vietcong rebels in the South. At this time there were virtually no North Vietnamese troops in the South. In the USA among many makers of policy it became a common belief that the rebellion in the South was entirely Northern run and supported and drying up support in the North would destroy it in the South. Thus instead of finding the sources for insurrection in the South they found it in the North. Rather dubious.
In pursuit of this the US advisor’s and policy makers encouraged the South Vietnamese navy to engage in small scale attacks on North Vietnam and meanwhile US warships were patrolling off North Vietnam gathering intelligence for use in the South.
The first Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred after several South Vietnamese naval craft had attacked the North Vietnamese coast and were being pursued by North Vietnamese naval craft. These naval craft ran into two American destroyers gathering intelligence, (There is a debate whether or not the American destroyers were in international waters or in waters claimed as territorial by North Vietnam.) Well shots were fired, one US ship had very minor damage and one North Vietnamese boat was badly damaged.
The next night the Americans feeling they were being tested by the North Vietnamese had reinforced their forces in the gulf apparently due to stormy conditions and the belief that the North Vietnamese would attack all sorts of events that night were interpreted has an attack. There was likely no attack.
In Washington it was felt that North Vietnam and China were testing American resolve and rather than back down which would encourage the Communists to try more such tests, the situation required escalation in order to show American resolve. Of course some, far from all, American policy makers were looking for an excuse to escalate things in Vietnam but it appears most American policy makers at the time genuinely thought it was a deliberate provokation and they could not back down.
It appears that the second incident never happenned and that regarding the first incident the North Vietnames were not engaging in a deliberate act of provocation. In fact their fear was that the USA was deliberately trying to provoke an incident with the boat raids and the intelligence gathering.
In other words both sides fucked up and hundreds of thousands if not millions died as a result.
Damn it, Pacal! Who’s paying you!?!!???
I’ll debate at you! You just watch!
Yeah it waws another of my long posts filled with stuff and propably too many spelling and grammar errors.
So you want to debate. How about a debate about the origins of the War of the Triple Alliance?