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:
- This week the wackosphere has been positively besotted with the misguided notion that a staged alien attack is around the corner. Or as Alex Jones put it: “Pay your carbon taxes to Al Gore or space aliens will attack.” A thoughtful reply.
- Ron Paul and FEMA death camps. ‘Nuff said.
- Why is NASA hiding the impending doom of earth? You see, Earth is entering an “intersteller energy cloud” that is upsetting the sun….Do they say that neutrinos are mutating? Anyway, this despite the fact that energy is not a Star Trek alien that hovers out there in amorphous cloud form. Hold on…I think I discovered why NASA isn’t reporting it. It’s because they were busy trying to figure out why Mercury was destroyed.
- The Association for Research and Enlightenment (aren’t they out of Harvard?) claims that they have found a pre-Ice Age civilization off of the Bahamas. I saw that this group is associated with “psychic” and “medical intuitive” Edgar Cayce. Yikes! Also, I want a cult! Why can’t I have a cult?!
- The paranoid underground seems to think that the Super Congress assembled to work on the budget is a sort of secret government. Also, John Kerry is a member of the Illuminati. Thought you’d like to know.
- Wow. There are still birthers.
- Sigh. Surprise, surprise. Vigilant Citizen thinks that the 27 Club is not only real, but apparently evidence of cult sacrifice.
- Ah, Susan Lindauer, who was found mentally unfit to contribute to her own defense when she was brought up on spying charges, was in LA speaking to the appropriately acronymed WACLA (We Are Change LA). Two things: 1) What’s with the dogs playing poker? and 2) Did that guy use the word “critical thinking”?
- From Carl Zimmer: Death threats leveled at chronic fatigue researchers. “No one’s bombed a lab,” he says, but the same can’t be said for researchers in nanotechnology.
- Racism and Hobbit metaphors. Who do you think is the Dark Lord is in this Canada Free Press article?
- Vatican and NASA pairing up either to discuss alien life, disclose the truth about aliens, or build a stairway to heaven.
- Mike Adams has a man-crush on Alex Jones.
- NATO? No, it’s now ZATO–the Zionist Alliance for Total Occupation. Take this thoughtful comment, for instance: “ZATO is a murder machine based on a web of lies, for the sole purpose of profit at any cost. It is the military arm of ZOG. Kim Kardashian is a murder machine, fueled by the corporations who pimp her as an icon for successful existence. It’s a fitting irony that she has no talent at anything but this and that is enough for most.” Later on, aligning Jews with Satanism, it reeks of Christian Identity.
- “Wake up to the falsehood, man!” Someone, not North Korea this time, takes Onion as fact.
- Hey, this is classy. 9/11-brand memorial wine.
- It’s a cure for cancer. I’m not joking. It makes cancer not happen in the first place. It’s the philosopher’s stone of public health, and we have it now. It’s the height of evil, in my opinion, that Natural News would suggest that scientists are hiding cures for cancer and offering instead, what, bran flakes and homeopathic grass clippings or whatever instead. Here’s something about Rick Perry.
- Here’s a good one. “World Government assaulting children with vaccines.” The guy calls himself doctor, but it’s an OMD: Doctor of Oriental Medicine. AHAHA! For over the self-aggrandizing dishonest title, bucko. You haven’t earned it.
- Are chemtrails related to today’s earthquake? HMMM?
- I think that Richard Gage has woken up and smelled the money. He’s looking to raise $1,000,000 for an ad campaign.
- Someone put one of my online handles up as an Israeli shill on /reddit.
- Here’s a party you don’t want to attend: “Dimitri The Lover, manager of The Scumballys, will address the crowd with his thoughts on 9-11, the New World Order’s conspiracy to feminize men, and where the world is heading in the next few years.” Count me in Canada for that one, suckers!
- Pamela Geller, who was heavily cited in the Breivik manifesto, is an abominable abomination with extra abominosity.
- A kid in a basement pretends he’s Anonymous and declares a war on the New World Order.
- Bob Tuskin asks, “Was the Titanic an Inside Job?” Yes, the iceberg was hired by the White Star Line, Bob.
- When I say that conspiracy theorists can’t tell truth from fiction, I’m not speaking metaphorically, people. “Armageddon is real.” OHMYGOD! We actually have a black president now! Oh, wait. That was Deep Impact. Morgan Freedman playing..PRESIDENT BECK!
- Aw, it’s so cute. Someone is still scared of Freemasons.
- I bet that John McTernan is regretting that tattoo now.
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
Skeptical Humanities 
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?
IntrepidSol:
I fart better science than these feebs have managed to put together.
I hope this clarifies my position.
RJB
Actually I was hoping for a more scientific response. What part of their argument are you taking issue with?
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
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?
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
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”.
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.
Yowza! But tell us how you really feel! 🙂
RJB
I’m feeling a little pissed off today. So any comments on the more substantial posting?
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
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.
“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?
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.
Still waiting for a reply from Bob.
@ Pacal you are entitled to your opinion, though you’ve not answered any of the questions either.
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”?
I’m not interested in your recycled, inane questions.
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?
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.
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?
RJB
This rat is wearing a sweater. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Thank you for another cute pic of a fuzzy little beastie!!.
Yes, I’ve reached the “I’m not interested in having this conversation again” point.
“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.