This is the feature where I use my expertise as a writing teacher and give back to the community. I give the aspiring racist puke poets at Stormfront.org the frank and honest reviews that their poetry deserves. Honestly, there is nothing worse or more offensive than white nationalist doggerel.
Tonight's selection will have you pulling out your own toenails in the vain attempt to forget the pain it caused you. It is called, "Dark Hordes." Click on the image to embiggen them.
For the last several days, I have been pondering the question of what it would take to convince a conspiracist or end-times prophet to admit that they were wrong. You hear someone like that asshat Howse speculating that the U.N. or some foreign power is going to take over the country--and then nothing happens! Or that Obama is destroying the country or deliberately trying to wreck the economy. And over and over and over these people are completely wrong, and they never address it. The economy is still here. The union is still intact. I can admit when I've dropped the ball. I was wrong when I thought that Bill Sparkman, the census worker who was found swinging, had been murdered. I thought it was likely a militia-related lynching. Luckily for everyone, I think, he was troubled, and there are not militias going around killing federal workers. But do we ever hear those ideologically committed to conspiracy say that? How do they account for a lack of anything like progress toward the supposed goals of the world dominionists? They simply don't, I suppose.
Part of the problem with end-time prophecy is that in order to make the prophecy, the world has to not have ended yet. This means, of course, that the world might end. It's like an anthropic principle for the End Times.
Of course, every actual date that has been predicted to be, well, the last one, has passed without any remarkable consequence. I think that end-timers realize this, and they no longer fix dates. Fixing dates would allow us to test them. And they fall back on the old Bible verse: "No man knows the day or the hour..." as if that was sort of revealed truth, when it is in fact common sense.
Sigh.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit distracted ths morning...Grading to do. Baby Man is in his playpen at the moment, but I think he's loading up his diaper. Gr.
I started getting a sniffle last night. By this time tomorrow, I will be in the fetal position underneath my coffee table begging for someone to kill me.
Whenever I get a cold, Bing goes away and gets replaced by Baby Man. Baby Man is just like Bing, but he's grumpy (haha! cough! sniff!). I'm not sure where Baby Man lives. It might be my nose, and then he slides out whenever things start to get slippery in there, as I can only image they are right now. I had hoped that Baby Man would not be able to follow me to Georgia, but this is the third time that Baby Man has reared his ugly rear since I have arrived in the South. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I teach a lot of freshmen, who are a sickly, filthy bunch. I can ward off Baby Man sometimes. Like this morning. A snootful of Afrin and some cold meds and I can put him down for about 6 hours. (Baby Man looks so precious while he's sleeping.)
But Baby Man can not be kept down. He will find his way out. I am currently fighting him with beer. I figure if I'm going to be sick, I'd rather not mind so much. "But," you are saying, you weird person, "you are giving beer to an infant!" Baby Man gets what Baby Man wants and Baby Man wants beer and wants beer now.
Is like a really pathetic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
At about 6:00 PM, a Girl Scout with a particularly sharp banana would be able to kill me. And Baby Man will welcome it.
As I felt the cold take hold last night, I thought, "This is pretty fast. I wonder if I have finally caught that damned flu I've heard so much about." I thought, "Am I aching?" I thought I might be, but I'm clearly not. The problem is that I was going to campus to get my flu shots this week, and they don't give out vaccines to people who are already having an immune response. I'm not sure why.
You remember how after Anita Ikonen failed to demonstrate that she could see inside the human body she popped up in the empty chat room a few hours later, where she left this graffiti:
10:31 ustreamer-15131: Hello anyone still out here! This is Anita Ikonen/VFF! 10:31 ustreamer-15131: Thank you for watching my test! It was fun, everything went well, and I can't wait to post the notes and final conclusions! 10:32 ustreamer-15131: The first and third trials were hard, I was not sure on them. The second trial I was sure of, and it was correct. All of my thoughts are in the papers I handed in to James Underdown. 10:33 ustreamer-15131: Either way, however, I failed the IIG Preliminary. 10:33 ustreamer-15131: But I feel like I got 50% correct, and 50% incorrect. So where do I go from there? 10:33 ustreamer-15131: This is VFF/Anita! 10:33 ustreamer-15131: No one here anymore.
As you doubtlessly know, she had 3 rounds where six people, one of whom was missing a kidney, sat with their backs to her and she had to look inside them and pick out the person and the side the kidney was missing from. She had a 1 in 4 chance of getting 1 right, and that's what she did, demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that she can defy 1-in-4 odds. Heheh.
She said she felt like she got 50% correct, but that's just wrong factually. Yeah, well, sometimes I feel like I'm Norwegian royalty, but that don't make it so, sister.
Anyway, Anita, who apparently ego-surfs, ended up on my website after I posted:
VisionFromFeeling said...
Nothing sad about engaging in a test with the Independent Investigations Group and failing by my own accord. The test was arranged and conducted by the IIG far beyond my expectations, it was professionally done and reliable.
And if you think failing at a scientific investigation is sad, then you are lucky to not work within the field of science, because all we are interested in is reliable results, and failure is part of scientific progress.
There is so much crap packed into this statement, I have no idea what even to make of it. She equivocates here big-time. "Failing at a scientific investigation" is not what was so sad. I was delighted that she failed! Heehee. It was the "I'm not a loser, I swear" tone that she had while essentially talking to herself in the chat room, when in fact she was one. And it was completely unconvincing.
By her own accord, she did not fail as badly as she in fact did. To think that there was anything that in anyway confirmed her delusional worldview is in itself sad. Failure is not part of demonstrating a superhuman ability, Anita, and that's what you were out to do. The only people in the room who were doing science were the ones from IIG. You weren't even entertaining. Jeez! Now, if you changed your hypothesis based on the evidence, that you have no paranormal abilities, that might be considered progress. If you took your wacky site down like I suggested after the test, that would be progress in the name of science.
If you want to see floundering, flailing and unwarranted optimism, I suggest you go to her stinkhole of a website and see her reflections on her failure. The best she could come up with, I gathered from skimming the write up, were "I knew I was wrong for two of them," which begs the question, why did you say the one thing that you knew was incorrect, you crazy person? That's how people fail the SATs. The next problem was that "some of the subjects had long hair, which was distracting." Bullshit. You never saw a long-haired person before, you wackaloon? Give me a break. Once when I was hosting the skeptics' circle, I was sent a film by someone doing "psychic kung-fu." So I looked it up, found it to be hilarious and found a test of it by a skeptic. When the kung-fu master failed to knock over the skeptic by screaming at him and pointing at him rather severely, the guy was nonplussed. "He must know where to put his tongue to block the attack."
"Fuck, off loser," I believe is the appropriate response to that silliness. Or kick the kung-fu master in the balls while he is grunting strenuously in your direction. That's always funny.
The line between reality tv and the news is getting perilously thin.
I mean, you have one jackass putting together the perfect media hoax a few weeks ago (the Barfing Balloon Boy--really, it was brilliant and stupid and nothing in between--like quantum states of kickass)...
...now you have the party crashers at the White House, who were gunning for a TV show (apparently on CourtTV).
It's clear that if I want to be on teh TVs, I'm going to have to do something even stoopider.
I'm thinking about French kissing the Pope.
HJ (actually, would rather give Yoda a blowjob, come to think of it)
PS: WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT SHITBAG DEEPAK CHOPRA DOING ON THE GUEST LIST?!?!! M. Night Shama-fucking-lan? It's true. Fucking anyone can get in to see the President.
The humanities have a hard time conducting "research" in the scientific, controlled study sense. Every so often, these sorts of proddings of the universe seem like they would be really useful. Take, for instance, measuring improvements in student writing. You would think that knowing what worked would be useful. So, how do people in the humanities tackle that question? Require everyone teaching freshmen to, regardless of the class he/she is teaching to force students to write 5 short reflective essays (under 500 words) about what they learned, one for each type of paper/project/project that they did during the semester. No standardization ahead of time, none afterward. I have no idea how...whoever is going to use this "data"...is going to make something useful out of it. I really don't know. Now, this would not be so bad if I had enough time to break it to my students that this was going to be a required, extra thing and we only have a few weeks left to get everything else done. They are going to hate me.
Oh, well.
At some point last week, after a bottle of vino, I apparently agreed to go play with homeless cats at the shelter tomorrow. I mean, it's not a bad gig, I suppose. I mean, I could have volunteered to go out and chop wood or pave a driveway or something, but I get hives. I'm very delicate. So I have that to look forward to. I'm just not sure how I am going to be able to devote 2+ hours to it. 15 minutes of play time, and usually both the cat and I are happy to go our own ways with the knowledge of time well spent. But two hours? I'm afraid that I'll never want to see another cat again!
I am almost done reading my book about Bigfoot. Bigfoot: that's some stupid shit, folks. Apparently the cryptolosers who take him very seriously, even though every sighting is clearly another in a string of hoaxes, fakes and frauds. And clearly no small number of stupids. Maybe I'll do a book review here.
I saw an AP story out this afternoon that suggests that a lot of people have pointed out that the locked-in Belgian is in all likelihood being used as a human Ouija board.
A few important things that the AP could have mentioned, but didn't: Single-finger hunting and pecking requires that you look at the keyboard. This man is often looking away or asleep. THAT'S how unconvincing this is. And the doctor needs to explain how this could be possible. Preferably while I'm not drinking milk.
Also, I'm undecided about being classified as a "doubters." I think that doubt is a positive attribute, a prophylactic against being a credulous fuckwit. But I suspect that in the culture it has a negative connotation.
This week's Skeptic Zone has an old interview with Randi about facilitated communication. It starts at 36:18, and it's a bummer. Big bummer. Because weening someone off of their last hope is heartbreaking.
Another possible title was, "Bodie Hodge Makes God Facepalm."
Bodie Hodge, consistently the dumbest person at Answers in Genesis by several orders of magnitude (impressive, that), but who presumably can't be fired because he is helping Ham produce the next generation of idiots (I was going to say "banging the boss's daughter," but that would be crude), has really jumped the boxcar full of emaciated Jews. When dealing with Bodie, you need to understand that he is, in almost the clinical sense of the term, a genuine idiot.
I'm a little late on this one, but it needed saying.
Recently Bodie got into what passes for a thoughtful conversation at Answers in Genesis when a letter came in, which read in part:
Bodie is almost always right on the mark and is probably my favorite feedback man, but in this case I have to take exception to his saying that it is always wrong to lie . . . The ninth commandment says we should never bear false witness against our neighbor (or anyone). But if the Nazis are looking for Jews, and you know where they are, it would not be wrong to lie, in order to protect them, nor would this be bearing false witness “against” someone . . . I think in the same way the Israeli midwives lied to the Egyptians about the birthing of male babies in Moses’s day . . . I know its a rare exception, but there may be other circumstances when it might be appropriate to “lie”, although obviously, 99% percent of the time it would be wrong .
Bodie is my favorite feedback guy, but probably for entirely different reasons. See if you can locate the litotes in his opening line:
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis and thanks for the comments. I know this can be a touchy subject, but please bear with me as I try to explain. Keep in mind that I, too, am not perfect but will try to answer as scripturally as possible.
He goes through a couple of unrelated passaged in the Bible about people lying, misses the fact that when god kills someone for lying, he's totally overreacting, and then concludes:
In light of such passages, does a “righteous lie” really exist? The most common example sent to me was envisioning the Holocaust and being placed in the position of lying to potentially protect someone’s life. Like most, if placed in such a difficult situation, it would be very difficult. In fact, I could never be sure what I would do, especially if it were a loved one.
But consider for a moment that we are all already sentenced to die because we are sinners (Romans 5:12). It is going to happen regardless. If a lie helps keep someone alive for a matter of moments compared to eternity, was the lie, which is high treason against the Creator, worth it?
It would be like sitting in a cell on death row and when the guards come to take your roommate to the electric chair, you lie to the guards and say you don’t know where the person went—while your roommate is hiding under their covers on the bed. Does it really help? Since we are all sinners (Romans 3:23), death is coming for us, and there is an appointed time (Ecclesiastes 3:2).
Basically, the Jew had it coming. That'll teach you to seek shelter in Herr Ubersturmdouchebag Hodge's house.
Your analogy is shit, Hodge. Let's say that the inmate hiding under the covers was guilty of the crime. A case can be made that this guy is well and rightfully screwed. But the bunch of Jews, whose trip to hell, from your point of view, you are hastening (as they march out your door, do you think they'll have a favorable view of Christians?), they have done nothing wrong other than being born into a world with Christians, who somehow think that everyone is basically awful from conception because some distant relative was convinced by a water moccasin to eat a knowledge apple. Sucks to be the Jew. If you really believe that God would have you turn in innocents, Bodie, you are a moral Munchkin and no better than that demented deity of yours. I'm with Huck on this one: “All right, then, I'll go to hell”
If one day you hear that not a single Salvation Army bell ringer in Atlanta arrived at work one morning, in the interest of not wasting public resources, please encourage the police to just dig up my backyard.
God, I hate those people.
When I am out and about, I have my sunglasses and mp3 player on, just your average everyday disconnected hipster douchebag, and it occurs to me that if I wanted to hear a bell ring, I would be playing it on my headphones.
When I hear that bell ring, I lust for napalm and flat-trajectory anti-aircraft artillery.
Here's a joke: What's funny? A dead bell ringer! Ha!
I'm not sure what it is about them that irritates the ever-living piss out of me. I think it's their existence. I hear that a lot of homeless people do the actual bell ringing, but this to me is a bad strategy, because I see the same people doing it year after year. Clearly, this giving to charity shit ain't working!
You heard about that misdiagnosed "coma" patient who had been lying around for a couple of decades, who now seems to be "locked-in" (think Diving Bell and the Butterfly)? Well, he was very eloquent, I thought, and it was uplifting. I mean, thank fuck someone noticed that this man was trapped and conscious! He has a chance to reach out again. To reconnect!
And then Steven Novella, that buzzkill, had to go and kill my buzz (for which I thank him, by the way). He linked to CNN footage of the guy "communicating." Tell me if you see anything suspicious:
She is totally moving that guy's hand! This is what is known as "facilitated communication"--letting another speak for the incapacitated person. It works along the same lines as the experience of a Ouija board--conscious control bypasses awareness of that control, a well understood ideomotor phenomenon that surely this man's doctors are aware of. Novella reports that the facilitator was recommended by the family, which is telling and heartbreaking. I encourage my readers (both of you) to write to the reporter and let him know that there is a real story here, just not the one he thinks there is.
Last night, I went through this video about WTC7 point by point, demonstrating that metal expands (yeah, I know), that steel loses strength as it heats up, that WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint, that it was decidedly not merely a small office fire that brought down WTC7. And Malcolm doesn't post it! HAHAHA!
I know! Total failure!
Of course, the more I have looked through his website, the more clear that we are not dealing with anyone of any intellectual capacity. Most of his website consists of posting other people's shit and going, "hm? hm? What about that?" I teach writing and research, and, honestly, I would have Malcolm tested for a learning disability. He is clearly incapable of synthesizing various strains of thought, analyzing them critically, and making an original argument based on accumulated knowledge. Indeed, when he twice invited me to post on his website and thought he was telling me off for good, it became clear that he might not actually be mentally ill. Usually, I would take someone who was this debilitated off of the bus, but because he apparently made these promises in bad faith (just lying...there was a whole commandment against that, if I remember correctly), this sad, sorry suck stays put.
Perhaps it was not a good idea to hand out copies of Comfort's bowdlerized Origin at universities, where people are often equipped with critical thinking skills.
There has been a running dialog between me and Malcolm Trosclair.
Malcolm Trosclair said...
Thanks so much for spelling my name right and linking to my blog post
"A New Short Bus Rider Malcolm Trosclair" http://lastdaysrevival.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-short-bus-rider-malcolm-trosclair.html
The funny thing is that your linking to the video "Dual Citizens - Domestic Enemies?" is probably one of the most important pieces of hardcore truth you have ever published. Perhaps one day, one of your visitors will wake up to the truth because of it.
I'll be praying for your salvation and for you to come to the knowledge of the truth in these other areas. Sincerely, Malcolm Trosclair November 18, 2009 9:39:00 PM CST
Bing said...
It made no claims! In order for it to make sense, really, you need to already believe that Jewish devils are already trousers-down in the halls of power having big Hasidic gangbang of Lady Liberty. For instance, I find no evidence that Mukasey is an Israeli citizen. He was born in the US before Israel existed (1941). Wrong. In 2004, as a Federal Judge, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent (not, you'll notice, Israeli law), he dismissed a lawsuit against Italian insurer Generali, which had sought "damages for nonpayment of insurance proceeds to beneficiaries of policies purchased by Holocaust victims before the end of World War II. In so ruling, Mukasey gave deference to "a federal executive branch policy favoring voluntary resolution of Holocaust-era insurance claims." Clearly only a puppet of Zionists could come to such a conclusion. The first assertion of that damned video is already demonstrably wrong!!! Second example: dual Israeli citizenship requires military service in the IDF. Where's the evidence that Chertoff was in the fucking IDF? He meets by his none of the requirements of citizenship for Israel, either by birthplace (New Jersey), return, naturalization, or residence! TWO STRIKES, ASSHAT! This is your pillar of truth? This is not my first goat-fuck, and it is not hard to follow up on these claims. This is not hidden knowledge, dude. Do your own homework before you decide to jump on the Ubermench party wagon.
In your response, you never even bothered to address the substantive questions and deep flaws in reasoning that I pointed out. How was Churchill the first to bomb civilians when Hitler was dropping high explosives on the residents of Guernica before WWII? How did the War to Establish Israel happen to begin with Imperial Japan? You have no idea how history works, nor even the barest sense of historical perspective.
Don't pray for me. Do something useful. Give blood. Or both of your kidneys.
HJ
Malcolm Trosclair said...
Thanks for asking! If you watch these three videos you will have many of your questions answered. If on the other hand you aren't interested in learning anything, because you think you already know it all, then our conversation will be a short one.
Forbidden Knowledge: Jack Otto Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66zOgVAnIgE
"The Other Israel" Ted Pike http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuR1yntPBss&feature=related
Terror Storm (2 hours 14 minutes) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3372070486365630700&q=terror+storm&total=397&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E#
Bing said...
Again. Factlessness. Jesus, don't let other people make your arguments for you. Make your own fricken arguments.
HJ
Malcolm Trosclair said...
You said I was a “nobody”, so why do you want my opinion when you can have real evidence at the click of a mouse. What are you afraid of?
Larry "Silversteen" admits on a PBS Special on 9/11 that they decided to "pull" building 7. Pull is one of several terms used in the demolition industry for destroying a building by controlled demolition explosives.
Controlled Demolition of Building 7 Admitted On PBS (10 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY
The controlled demolition was done using a high tech explosive known as nanothermite, which has been recently found by a number of scientist around the world who have examined the dust from ground zero.
A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
9/11 Inside Job - The Most Damning Evidence Yet! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
The man who was the head of all American Military Intelligence says 9/11 was a fraud.
General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E&feature=related
After you have watched these clips, feel free to express your opinion about them, or ask specific questions relating to what you watched. Until you do that, I will not devote any more of my time to this conversation, but I will pray for you, like it or not. Malcolm
Bing said...
You said I was a “nobody”, so why do you want my opinion when you can have real evidence at the click of a mouse. What are you afraid of?
Because Malcolm, I have already bathed in every 9/11 conspiracy theory on the planet, and I was giving you the opportunity to do better than them, asshat. And you still fail. Still.
I like the fact that you use General Stubblebein. When you said, "The man who was the head of all American Military Intelligence says 9/11 was a fraud," I thought, "If he's talking about Stubblebein, I am going to shit down Malcom's neck." Open wide, Malcolm, because I had a lot of Cheerios last night. Here's how The Men Who Stare at Goats opens:
This is a true story. It is the summer of 1983. Major General Albert Stubblebine III is sitting behind his desk in Arlington, Virginia, and he is staring at his wall, upon which hang his numerous military awards. They detail a long and distinguished career. He is the United States Army's chief of intelligence, with sixteen thousand soldiers under his command. He controls the army's signals intelligence, their photographic and technical intelligence, their numerous covert counterintelligence units, and their secret military spying units, which are scattered throughout the world. He would be in charge of the prisoner-of-war interrogations too, except this is 1983, and the war is cold, not hot.
He looks past his awards to the wall itself. There is something he feels he needs to do even though the thought of it frightens him. He thinks about the choice he has to make. He can stay in his office or he can go into the next office. That is his choice. And he has made it.
He is going into the next office.
General Stubblebine looks a lot like Lee Marvin. In fact, it is widely rumored throughout military intelligence that he is Lee Marvin's identical twin. His face is craggy and unusually still, like an aerial photograph of some mountainous terrain taken from one of his spy planes. His eyes, forever darting around and full of kindness, seem to do the work for his whole face.
In fact he is not related to Lee Marvin at all. He likes the rumor because mystique can be beneficial to a career in intelligence. His job is to assess the intelligence gathered by his soldiers and pass his evaluations on to the deputy director of the CIA and the chief of staff for the army, who in turn pass it up to the White House. He commands soldiers in Panama, Japan, Hawaii, and across Europe. His responsibilities being what they are, he knows he ought to have his own man at his side in case anything goes wrong during his journey into the next office.
Even so, he doesn't call for his assistant, Command Sergeant George Howell. This is something he feels he must do alone.
Am I ready? he thinks. Yes, I am ready.
He stands up, moves out from behind his desk, and begins to walk.
I mean, he thinks, what is the atom mostly made up of anyway? Space!
He quickens his pace.
What am I mostly made up of? he thinks. Atoms!
He is almost at a jog now.
What is the wall mostly made up of? he thinks. Atoms! All I have to do is merge the spaces. The wall is an illusion. What is destiny? Am I destined to stay in this room? Ha, no!
Then General Stubblebine bangs his nose hard on the wall of his office.
Damn, he thinks.
General Stubblebine is confounded by his continual failure to walk through his wall.
Your superstar thinks he can walk through fucking walls, Malcolm. Yes, I know everything.
Reply? Rebuttal?
HJ
Bing said...
I was at DragonCon when I heard some 9/11 "Truther" mention nano-thermite. OK, I was not aware nano-thermite was a thing until then. But we checked the source (this is the type of shit you learn when you do your own homework), and even though the truther said in front of at least 1000 people that the result was published in a peer reviewed journal, it wasn't.
MALCOLM IS LIQUID METAL! No. Do you have any idea how much (previously potential) energy was released in those collapses? Yes, including WTC 7. More than enough to make metal glow for weeks, especially when it was buried and did not dissipate. I mean, fucking thermite does not burn for weeks either. The Hindenberg (essentially painted with the precursors to thermite) was not a slow burn.
Ah, the lalala I can't hear you defense. The last refuge of an idiot.
Jam Jesus in your asscrack.
HJ
Malcolm Trosclair said...
When you stand before God on Judgment Day, you will be without excuse. Humble yourself before your Creator, or you will regret it for all eternity.
I'm still praying that God will reveal Himself to you and that you will repent of your rebellion. Malcolm Trosclair
Bing said...
Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that a wall-walking-into loon is your star witness and they you align yourself with him. If god has revealed himself to me in the world, he's proven himself a sadistic, monomaniacal sociopath. For instance, I saw a squirrel not killed, only squished and left alive today on the road. You would contend that this is because a rib-lady ate a knowledge apple. Do you know what a 1st grade idea that sounds like? But still, I watched the dumbest movies ever, and you still did not reply. Defend.
HJ
Malcolm Trosclair said...
Bing, Your hatred for God has caused you to believe lies, in every area of your life. Therefore there is nothing that anyone could say on these subjects that you would be able to receive, except of course more lies. In fact, every time I read something you have written I am reminded of this passage.
Romans Chapter 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Bing, please humble yourself while there is yet time. The Bible says;
"It is appointed for a man, once to die and then the judgment."
There is no reincarnation and no soul sleep, only an eternity of remembering that Malcolm guy pleading with you to get right with God. I don't want to see you burn, but God can't let you into heaven without repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the only one who has paid the penalty for your sin.
It doesn't matter that you say you don't believe in God. God knows otherwise and you are, as this passage states, "without excuse".
If you said that you didn't believe in the law of gravity and took a flying leap off a tall building, your not believing in gravity wouldn't keep you from making quite an impression on the pedestrians below, not to mention the side walk.
Bing said...
TL;DR
I love a post that begins, "Dear Bing, you are wrong about absolutely everything."
First off, being reminded of a passage in the bible is not an acceptable alternative to thinking and answering the fucking questions.
You are so wrong about the 9/11 stuff that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, how could I possibly take your word on the ineffable? AND YOU STILL WONT ANSWER MY CHALLENGES TO YOUR FEEBLE VIDEOS (I've replied to your little videos, and you have not even addressed the points I made--dude thinks he can walk through walls and levitate-REPLY, YOU CUR! [these are dueling words!!]).
And God and gravity are completely different things. One is experienced in a confirmed way by everyone on the planet. God is a story that only some people can dupe themselves into believing. I don't have that capacity, and as a consequence, I get to sleep in on Sundays.
Your god means nothing to me, and i'm not interested in discussing it. If you can so fervently believe something as wrong as what as General Walk-Into-The-Wall does, what is stopping you from being wrong about the Big Jeez?
Answer the 9/11 questions or get lost.
HJ
Malcolm Trosclair said...
Bing, It appears that you may be right about Stubblebine. Yesterday I saw this on G. Edward Griffin's website "Unfiltered News". Thank you for giving me a heads up on the possibility that Stubblebine and his wife may not be on the up and up.
CONTROVERSY CONTINUES OVER STUBBLEBINE AND LAIBOW AS SUSPECTED FALSE LEADERS IN THE NATURAL HEALTH MOVEMENT http://www.thenhf.com/press_releases/pr_09_jul_2009.html
However, even if Stubblebine is everything you say he is, that doesn't mean that 9/11 was not an inside job.
Last summer I was asked by the founder of this organization to make phone calls to get more building design and construction professionals to sign their petition.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth http://www.ae911truth.org/
These are the guys who design and oversee the construction of high rise buildings. To date, 969 architects and engineers have signed the petition, because in their opinion only controlled demolition could have destroyed the buildings.
I too have studied the 9/11 question and have spent aproximately $10,000 of my own money to host a conference here in Pensacola.
Pensacola 9/11 Truth Symposium 2008 http://lastdaysrevival.blogspot.com/2008/10/pensacola-911-truth-symposium-2008.html
Unfortunately I can't imagine having a real give and take discussion of the evidence on 9/11, because of your closed mind and offensive manner and for this reason I will not be replying to any more of your comments. However if you want to be rude and offensive on my blog, please do so. I always appreciate the opportunity to show my readers how the other side thinks and acts. Go easy on the profanity though or I won't be able to post your comments. Still Praying For You, Malcolm
[NB About here I posted the other night. Here's the big double post, for which I apologize.]
Anyway, a doggedly persistent Malcolm Trosclair will be discussing the fall of the Twin Towers in the comments here, and I give him full permission to reproduce anything that I do here in this post or in the comments in full on his site. Go ahead and replace the profanity with, I don't know, rainbows or kittens or whatever makes you happy. But if anything goes up, everything goes up.
I cautioned Malcolm against taking my tone or timbre as an example of anyone else's thought. I tremble at the thought of being an example or representative of anyone other than myself. My thoughts are mine, which is why I wear this tinfoil hat, so nobody can steal them or pass them off as their own. Once I wore it shiny side in, and it was a whole big bad deal.
We got the God issue out of the way in the comments of the short bus post, and now we can talk about the physical evidence regarding 9/11.
I will start out by saying that I am willing to be convinced. Malcolm doesn't think that I am capable of changing my mind, but people who have been here have seen me do so, but only when the evidence is good. He really has a chance of changing my mind here.
So, I have opened an appropriately-named bottle of Irony and am ready to go.
The first salvo Malcolm fired included a number of videos that I presume he agrees with. The first came to me in this form:
A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
OK. I watched the whole thing. Beginning to end, and I immensely enjoyed the amusing novelty language, Danish.
Important points here. At no point does he sit down and explain what he found, how it works, or even make a case that, even if he had found something, how it supports a conspiracy theory. He is pointing to red particles and going "eh? eh?" He doesn't produce an image, confirmation from another lab, anything. Heck, he doesn't even tell me what journal he published in! Then he says a couple of things that strike me as extremely naive. First:
This is just daft. First, because he suggests that there is a type of science that could be fudged and still be considered science. Presumably that is the type of science he believes that other side practices. He seems damned sure that he is right for someone who admits at the time that his article has been out for less than a week. The statement, "we cannot be wrong" is not in the toolbox of a real scientist. Adam Savage said it best: "Failure is always an option." Now, I don't know if he means "fake data" or "make mistakes," but that really doesn't matter. You are naive if you think neither can be done. For example, say that you find that something falls to earth at 9.8 m/s/s. It stops being useful science when you say that angels are pushing down on falling objects at a steady rate so that the objects accelerate. Science can be botched at every level of interpretation. This is why peer-review is merciless--editors are trying to eliminate as much potential error as possible, and their reputation is on the line if they miss something glaring.
In the next breath, he says:
I don't know the provenance of his samples (and archeologist or geologist, for instance, would demand to know when and where something came from). I don't see any evidence in this interview one way or the other that he has ever had a sample under his microscope. And neither do you, I would point out. He is only making claims here. Don't give credence to someone because someone is on TV. Lots of idiots make it onto TV. Look at Oprah's show!
The "47-storey" building, of course, is WTC7. The image below is the best angle that I have seen of the shot, and even though retarded guinea pigs from Pluto can see that frames have been cut out to make it look (badly) like it fell faster, I could give a dingo's kidneys about the image. More interesting to me is what the people filming say.
"I told you that sucker was going to go." "You see, that's why they didn't try to put that fire out." The building was clearly in visibly bad shape, and the fire was burning for a long time. Some truther, of course, futzed with the footage, and, man, it looks bad for a fake. I would like you to admit, Malcolm, that that footage was badly faked between time marks 5 & 6 seconds. The zoom-in shot he's pulling back from shows the fire, and let's face it, the cloud of smoke changes completely between 4-6 seconds. This is altered video that precludes us from timing the collapse. Malcolm, please send me a link to footage that shows the entire collapse of #7 from top to bottom. Surely this is out there somewhere and we can time it. (Like I said, you have to show me the evidence. I'm not the one making the huge claim. It falls on the shoulders of the claimant to demonstrate their case.)
He does say a few things that show a breathtaking ignorance of what has happened since 9/11.
Nobody charged? What about the Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker? Not wanted? I have an APB out on a guy in a bathrobe and a beard named Osama "Peter" bin Laden. This guy's on the fracking moon, Malcolm, and demonstrably so. I just demonstrated it.
So who is this bozo I never heard of until tonight? Well, you can go to the list of his peer-reviewed publications that his university maintains and see how many have to do with nano-thermite. Eye-opening, wasn't it, Malcolm? You saw exactly zero peer-reviewed publications about nanothermite and 9/11. This paper was not peer-reviewed. It appeared in Bentham Science publications, and I am so sorry but they seem to have HUUUUGE credibility problems. They are clearly a pay-to-play fly by night outfit. Check out the hoax that a Cornell Graduate student pulled on them. He submitted a grammatically correct, literally meaningless paper to them, and they published it. Nobody has bothered to look at this guy's work because it was published at a vanity press, Malcolm. The Chronicle of Higher Education, which all academics should read, covered this hoax. Massively discredited. Suddenly it makes sense why nobody mentions where this article came from. I like the opening line of the Chronicle's article:
Bentham Science Publishers, as it watches editors quit in protest of lax peer-review standards, is contending that it agreed to publish a specious research report by a Cornell University graduate student because it was trying to trap the perpetrator.
What about New Scientist? What do they have to say about these publishers? They...joyless scientists...actually call it "crap." They call it CRAP because the purported submitting lab of the hoax was "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" (phrenology is studying the bumps on your head). It could not be a less credible publication. This paper fails peer-review muster. I would appreciate a couple of sciencey types who read to discuss the importance of peer-review. One of the tools in my bullcrap detection kit is if "new and earth-shattering science" is promoted primarily in the popular media and not in the journals. This reeks of such a rotten publication.
"Fudging science?" You bet you can, Neils. And now, you too know you can, Malcolm. Get it published in a real press and have it reviewed first by real chemists, then I'll listen. I am setting a very, very low bar here, one that you should adopt too.
Now there was this, which Malcolm put up:
Controlled Demolition of Building 7 Admitted On PBS (10 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY
"Pull it?" He's talking to the fire department at that point. There has been terrible loss of life, he said. He was saying pull the firefighters out of there. And when you let a building burn, it falls. This was an insult to my intelligence, Malcolm. Are you saying the fire department, which lost an assload of people that day, now moonlights as a professional demolition service, one that uses nano-thermite, which has never been shown to have been used in a single demolition in the history of ever? Really? Is that what you are contending? This is feeble. You have some bozo jumping around saying, "Silverstein says they blew it up!" And your evidence is the word "pull"? Feeble, Malcolm. Really, really weak. And how is a real estate developer going to use the word "pull" when talking about a fire crews? "Pull them out." Sure, he could be speaking in "demolition vernacular," but it seems unlikely since he is not a demolitions expert. In fact, even if you were right, the not-NYFD crew responsible for demolishing the last building uses the term in a very specific way, 'pulling' is clearly guiding the direction of the fall, not just "destroying" it.
And the Dan Rather bit. You know what, I remember that day very very well, Malcolm, and nobody knew what the hell was going in. Rather says it reminded him of a controlled demolition. So what? What else does he have to compare it to? To the inexpert eye, which I venture you have two of, it might look like a controlled demolition, but you don't even know what you would be looking for as evidence of a controlled demolition. In fact, if you look at Loose Change and similar self-published Truther silliness, they too rely heavily on evidence from people (on-site reporters) who do not have any authority or knowledge, and who can't possibly have the foggiest clue about what's happening. You are citing confused people and think it helps your case!
I've address that a lot of energy went into the building of the towers, all of them, including building 7 and it was transferred from potential into kinetic, chemical and thermal energy as it all burned and collapsed. We should not be surprised to see buried debris glowing red hot even weeks after the collapse. It is up to you to show me otherwise.
Now I appreciate that you have seen the light on Stubblebine. And you are right. Just because he has said other stupid things doesn't mean that this is stupid. That would be the opposite of the appeal to authority ("If X says something, then Y is true because X said it.") Only the pope can make that claim. (Haha.) But don't turn around and then say: "Look at all of these architects and engineers who don't believe that the WTC brought these buildings down." This is going to hurt quite a bit, Malcolm. But remember, I'm really, really enjoying it.
You say that 969 architects and engineers have signed the petition. Do you want to know how fringe, how far outside expert opinion belief you are? Screw the architects. They don't put the things up. That's what engineers do. Architects have the vision, engineers make it happen. But hell, let's make them all engineers. From my point of view, this makes your case as strong as it can be, since I consider architects the ones who design the fiddly bits around the doors.
Let's say that 969 engineers signed. Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.5 million engineers in the US. That is, and I have already been generous in giving you 969 engineers, you will acknowledge, .0646% of all engineers are in your camp. Now, you can scream, "But you are appealing to the authority of the majority!" Ah, but you are appealing to the authority of a marginalized minority of loony-toon crackpots who are WAY outside the mainstream of professional thought. And I looked through that list. This is not scientific, but eyeballing it, it seems that you have a high percentage of petroleum/environmental/chemical/electrical engineers on your list, whose opinions on matters of structural integrity are about as useless as an OB/GYN's opinion about experimental brain surgery.
The Creationists do this list thing too, not realizing that they are actually putting their necks into a noose. (See Project Steve.)
I too have studied the 9/11 question and have spent aproximately $10,000 of my own money to host a conference here in Pensacola.
Who did you have as your speakers?
Dave vonKleist: Wrote, and presumably misspelled, "9/11 in Plane Site." David Gunderson: who is known for "his belief in, and investigation of, criminal conspiracies involving cults run by government officials." Jim Marrs: Oh, I know him. He's a professional conspiracist. He's big-time. Yeah, he's well known.
Not exactly a diverse group. This is what we call the echo chamber effect. I encourage you to, the next time you drop $10,000 into a conference, that you try to get a diverse set of opinions instead of beating a single drum. And you don't get to call me closed-minded anymore.
You understand that I teach classes about conspiracy theories at the college level, right? That this is what I do professionally? That this is not my first time peeking my head into this particular girls' locker room?
I look forward to your reply and I will give it an entire post. If you post this at your site, I must insist that you post it in its entirety and have a link. HJ/Goliath (almost out of Irony--I love it. A bottle of vino and a conspiracy theory. I'm in heaven! Figuratively, Malcolm.)
Bing said...
Look in front of you! You don't have to imagine civilized discourse! It's right right there at my site! I made my most recent post as family friendly as possible for the benefit of your readership, should you want to re-post it in the interests of the civilized discourse you claim to crave!
I wonder if you would allow me to not be offensive on your site, Malcolm? I handed you the keys to my website, something I have done only once or twice, to give you a chance to make your case to my readership without my commentary (I'd introduce it as yours and would reply in a day or two, but you would have a full and complete solo airing--an entire HJHOP post or more all to yourself!) I honestly can't imagine someone who has preached to hostile audiences backing down from that.
You can't "just not read" contradictory arguments and expect to garner anything like respect, Malcolm. I have read everything that you have put in front of me, and I have replied as best I could to every single point. If you are going to claim to champion "reasoned discussion," you owe it to yourself to respond to the points. Heck, don't even mention me. Just talk about them as "challenges" and then show how they are wrong. Seriously. As I've said, I'm willing to be persuaded. Are you?
If not, at least send your readers (with all due warnings about my naughty language) to my post. They might be interested in engaging if you are not.
HJ Malcolm Trosclair said...
Bing, It's interesting that you make mention of the Old Testament in the title of your post challenging me to a debate on the issue of 9/11, because this conversation with you puts me in mind of another Old Testament Passage.
In Nehemiah chapter six, verses one through three, Nehemiah answers his enemies request for a meeting to discuss why Nehemiah is rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem. His answer is as follows.
1 When word came to Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies that I had rebuilt the wall and not a gap was left in it—though up to that time I had not set the doors in the gates- 2 Sanballat and Geshem sent me this message: "Come, let us meet together in one of the villages [a] on the plain of Ono." But they were scheming to harm me; 3 so I sent messengers to them with this reply: "I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?"
Bing, I stand by my decision not to "go down" to your blog. If you want to come on my blog and refute anything I post then so be it. Otherwise I suggest you go back to arguing with your friends at MoveOn.Org, because I am doing everything I can to wake the sleeping American Church to what is being done to our great nation and you only want to derail the work of anyone trying to get the truth out.
We originally started this discussion because of my criticism of Brannon Howse. The truth is that Brannon Howse is doing a pretty good job of exposing the Democrats evil agenda, but avoids making it crystal clear to his audience that the Republicans are working to implement the exact same agenda, because both parties get their marching orders from the very same global elite.
I criticized him for that reason, but at the same time I know that if he did give the whole story, that hardly a church in America would invite him to give his presentation at their church, because we pretty much get the leaders we deserve.
Again, I call on you to repent of your rebellion and hatred toward God and to embrace the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After that I trust that you will also consider the 9/11 issue with new eyes.
Respectfully, Malcolm Trosclair
P.S. The Emergency Warning For Office Workers (NIST WTC7) Video is a very humorous look at your position and just begs your comment.
Bing said...
I appreciate your trepidation that you might be challenged if you were to reply to me at my website, but that's not a hidden agenda, as your allusion suggests you perceive it. In fact, I have nothing if not a complete lack of subtlety. If there is a way I could be more blunt, please let me know, because otherwise I'm not doing my job. I'm openly challenging you to put up your best argument at a venue where you might actually change a mind or two. It's unlikely, I'll grant, but it's more productive than preaching to the choir, surely, if for no other reason than the other side will know exactly what you stand for.
I am, of course, more than willing to gird my girdables and wander into the opposing camp because I don't fear discussion. I don't censor what people can put on my website. I invite the opposing forces in for tea and thrashings. Have you ever seen the Matrix II: Return of the Killer Matrix? (Of course you've seen the Matrix. It's about a global conspiracy to keep minds enslaved! Also, the conspiracy world crawls with illusions to it.) I'm a little like Neo in the burley brawl when it comes to these debates. A pudgy, bearded Neo.
Would you be willing to debate the issue here instead of at my site? Would you be willing to give me a post. I have no illusions that you are going to go after my arguments, and I'm completely cool with that.
I'm afraid that I don't see how being a Bible believer opens my eyes to the "truth" of 9/11, that it was an inside job. I'm pretty sure most of the Mideast thinks that either Israel or the US government pulled off 9/11. It is clear that nobody has a monopoly on goof.
If you want to come on my blog and refute anything I post then so be it.
So, would you be willing to post my argument on your site, in pretty much the same manner that I offered you space on my website, complete and unaltered? If not, name your terms, and we'll see if we can come to a deal. The ball is in your court.
"so I sent messengers to them with this reply: "I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?"
NOTE: READ THIS BEFORE YOU ANSWER.
"Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?" It is the work. Because there is the remotest possibility that either you or I or one of our readers will learn something. I thought that was your great project!
I'm not asking you to come down to my place. I'm offering to bring the mountain to Muhammad, as it were. Heheh. I think it was you who said:
"However if you want to be rude and offensive on my blog, please do so. I always appreciate the opportunity to show my readers how the other side thinks and acts."
oh, and
"If you want to come on my blog and refute anything I post then so be it."
In English, the language I speak, you invited me to appear on you blog twice--I was just accepting. So no, you aren't clear, Malcolm. You are in fact barely aware of what you are writing.
And I did want to refute what you had to say, Malcolm, using the long, thought out, and considered response to the arguments you presented me. Now, it has pictures, which is why it can't just be jammed into the comments as is. That is the type of thing I thought we would negotiate.
Not allowing me to talk does not prove you right. It indicates that you probably can't defend your positions--at least, I still have no evidence that you can. If this were a high school club debate, you would be forfeiting and I would be dating your girlfriend right now. You understand that to any impartial, unbiased and unsaved person, I just won. You do get that, right? You haven't even tried.
HJ
And that is where things stand. Malcolm is not even slightly interested in making himself look better, and for some strange reason he thinks that getting people to throw things at you is a virtue:
After a while however the fear went away and helping others to find salvation in Jesus Christ became the most rewarding thing I've ever done. As you might imagine, ridicule, insults, intimidation and the occasional beer were thrown in my direction, but to the open air preacher, these things only serve to draw a bigger crowd.
It's not. It's in fact about as clear a sign that you are doing something really radically wrong as is humanly possible. But then again, look at all the other shit he believes. I'm sorry, but please just leave the thinking to the adults, Mal.
Oh, I hope this is true. It's like all of my urban legend fantasies rolled into one! It has a simplistic moral (don't look for your real parents if you don't really want to know), it has a "celebrity", and it has insane ritual murder, it has hidden identities, it has a relative nobody doing something innocuously and wandering into the headlines.... I mean, it is the ultimate urban legend, and you should be ashamed you did not think of it first!
Mythbusters should test this by seeing if Adam too is the son of Charles Manson. That's how we'd test it, right?
I was so upset last night when I logged out of my gmail account and, not meaning to, logged out of blogger in the middle of writing a post. When I hit "post" I lost everything I had been working on. I was writing a panegyric on warm underpants. There is nothing like warm underpants right out of the dryer when you are coming in from an hour's trudge on a cold, misty night. I could have wept, it was such a soothing sensation. I have known God, and He is a warm pair of Italian-cut bun-huggers.
And today, when I got home and I changed out of my khaki trousers, I wondered to myself, which is more completely satisfying: putting on relaxing pants at the end of a long day or putting on warm underpants after your balls have retracted into your body cavity? And I think it is perfectly clear. Women, because of their lack of retractable dangley appendages, are incapable of experiencing anything like perfect comfort on this planet. Sorry.
I went back to where the IIG Preliminary for Anita Ikonen took place (she failed) to see if there was anyone left in the chat, hours later. There wasn't but the last thing that I saw was this.
10:31 ustreamer-15131: Hello anyone still out here! This is Anita Ikonen/VFF! 10:31 ustreamer-15131: Thank you for watching my test! It was fun, everything went well, and I can't wait to post the notes and final conclusions! 10:32 ustreamer-15131: The first and third trials were hard, I was not sure on them. The second trial I was sure of, and it was correct. All of my thoughts are in the papers I handed in to James Underdown. 10:33 ustreamer-15131: Either way, however, I failed the IIG Preliminary. 10:33 ustreamer-15131: But I feel like I got 50% correct, and 50% incorrect. So where do I go from there? 10:33 ustreamer-15131: This is VFF/Anita! 10:33 ustreamer-15131: No one here anymore.
Get used to it, Anita. Oh, and getting 1/3 correct is not 50/50, idiot. You suck at math and seeing kidneys (yes, that's her claimed power).
"Did the US make mistake in skipping vaccine additive?" (They are talking about adjuvants, like aluminum, that provoke a stronger immune response with less antigen, maybe doubling overall dose supplies.) The answer is yes.
"Atheist student groups grow on campus" (Notice how the number of atheists is not necessarily growing, only the number of atheists who are willing to openly identify as such and flex their mental muscles in public. You go, guys!)
Anyway, a doggedly persistent Malcolm Trosclair will be discussing the fall of the Twin Towers in the comments here, and I give him full permission to reproduce anything that I do here in this post or in the comments in full on his site. Go ahead and replace the profanity with, I don't know, rainbows or kittens or whatever makes you happy. But if anything goes up, everything goes up.
I cautioned Malcolm against taking my tone or timbre as an example of anyone else's thought. I tremble at the thought of being an example or representative of anyone other than myself. My thoughts are mine, which is why I wear this tinfoil hat, so nobody can steal them or pass them off as their own. Once I wore it shiny side in, and it was a whole big bad deal.
We got the God issue out of the way in the comments of the short bus post, and now we can talk about the physical evidence regarding 9/11.
I will start out by saying that I am willing to be convinced. Malcolm doesn't think that I am capable of changing my mind, but people who have been here have seen me do so, but only when the evidence is good. He really has a chance of changing my mind here.
So, I have opened an appropriately-named bottle of Irony and am ready to go.
The first salvo Malcolm fired included a number of videos that I presume he agrees with. The first came to me in this form:
A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
OK. I watched the whole thing. Beginning to end, and I immensely enjoyed the amusing novelty language, Danish.
Important points here. At no point does he sit down and explain what he found, how it works, or even make a case that, even if he had found something, how it supports a conspiracy theory. He is pointing to red particles and going "eh? eh?" He doesn't produce an image, confirmation from another lab, anything. Heck, he doesn't even tell me what journal he published in! Then he says a couple of things that strike me as extremely naive. First:
This is just daft. First, because he suggests that there is a type of science that could be fudged and still be considered science. Presumably that is the type of science he believes that other side practices. He seems damned sure that he is right for someone who admits at the time that his article has been out for less than a week. The statement, "we cannot be wrong" is not in the toolbox of a real scientist. Adam Savage said it best: "Failure is always an option." Now, I don't know if he means "fake data" or "make mistakes," but that really doesn't matter. You are naive if you think neither can be done. For example, say that you find that something falls to earth at 9.8 m/s/s. It stops being useful science when you say that angels are pushing down on falling objects at a steady rate so that the objects accelerate. Science can be botched at every level of interpretation. This is why peer-review is merciless--editors are trying to eliminate as much potential error as possible, and their reputation is on the line if they miss something glaring.
In the next breath, he says:
I don't know the provenance of his samples (and archeologist or geologist, for instance, would demand to know when and where something came from). I don't see any evidence in this interview one way or the other that he has ever had a sample under his microscope. And neither do you, I would point out. He is only making claims here. Don't give credence to someone because someone is on TV. Lots of idiots make it onto TV. Look at Oprah's show!
The "47-storey" building, of course, is WTC7. The image below is the best angle that I have seen of the shot, and even though retarded guinea pigs from Pluto can see that frames have been cut out to make it look (badly) like it fell faster, I could give a dingo's kidneys about the image. More interesting to me is what the people filming say.
"I told you that sucker was going to go." "You see, that's why they didn't try to put that fire out." The building was clearly in visibly bad shape, and the fire was burning for a long time. Some truther, of course, futzed with the footage, and, man, it looks bad for a fake. I would like you to admit, Malcolm, that that footage was badly faked between time marks 5 & 6 seconds. The zoom-in shot he's pulling back from shows the fire, and let's face it, the cloud of smoke changes completely between 4-6 seconds. This is altered video that precludes us from timing the collapse. Malcolm, please send me a link to footage that shows the entire collapse of #7 from top to bottom. Surely this is out there somewhere and we can time it. (Like I said, you have to show me the evidence. I'm not the one making the huge claim. It falls on the shoulders of the claimant to demonstrate their case.)
He does say a few things that show a breathtaking ignorance of what has happened since 9/11.
Nobody charged? What about the Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker? Not wanted? I have an APB out on a guy in a bathrobe and a beard named Osama "Peter" bin Laden. This guy's on the fracking moon, Malcolm, and demonstrably so. I just demonstrated it.
So who is this bozo I never heard of until tonight? Well, you can go to the list of his peer-reviewed publications that his university maintains and see how many have to do with nano-thermite. Eye-opening, wasn't it, Malcolm? You saw exactly zero peer-reviewed publications about nanothermite and 9/11. This paper was not peer-reviewed. It appeared in Bentham Science publications, and I am so sorry but they seem to have HUUUUGE credibility problems. They are clearly a pay-to-play fly by night outfit. Check out the hoax that a Cornell Graduate student pulled on them. He submitted a grammatically correct, literally meaningless paper to them, and they published it. Nobody has bothered to look at this guy's work because it was published at a vanity press, Malcolm. The Chronicle of Higher Education, which all academics should read, covered this hoax. Massively discredited. Suddenly it makes sense why nobody mentions where this article came from. I like the opening line of the Chronicle's article:
Bentham Science Publishers, as it watches editors quit in protest of lax peer-review standards, is contending that it agreed to publish a specious research report by a Cornell University graduate student because it was trying to trap the perpetrator.
What about New Scientist? What do they have to say about these publishers? They...joyless scientists...actually call it "crap." They call it CRAP because the purported submitting lab of the hoax was "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" (phrenology is studying the bumps on your head). It could not be a less credible publication. This paper fails peer-review muster. I would appreciate a couple of sciencey types who read to discuss the importance of peer-review. One of the tools in my bullcrap detection kit is if "new and earth-shattering science" is promoted primarily in the popular media and not in the journals. This reeks of such a rotten publication.
"Fudging science?" You bet you can, Neils. And now, you too know you can, Malcolm. Get it published in a real press and have it reviewed first by real chemists, then I'll listen. I am setting a very, very low bar here, one that you should adopt too.
Now there was this, which Malcolm put up:
Controlled Demolition of Building 7 Admitted On PBS (10 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY
"Pull it?" He's talking to the fire department at that point. There has been terrible loss of life, he said. He was saying pull the firefighters out of there. And when you let a building burn, it falls. This was an insult to my intelligence, Malcolm. Are you saying the fire department, which lost an assload of people that day, now moonlights as a professional demolition service, one that uses nano-thermite, which has never been shown to have been used in a single demolition in the history of ever? Really? Is that what you are contending? This is feeble. You have some bozo jumping around saying, "Silverstein says they blew it up!" And your evidence is the word "pull"? Feeble, Malcolm. Really, really weak. And how is a real estate developer going to use the word "pull" when talking about a fire crews? "Pull them out." Sure, he could be speaking in "demolition vernacular," but it seems unlikely since he is not a demolitions expert. In fact, even if you were right, the not-NYFD crew responsible for demolishing the last building uses the term in a very specific way, 'pulling' is clearly guiding the direction of the fall, not just "destroying" it.
And the Dan Rather bit. You know what, I remember that day very very well, Malcolm, and nobody knew what the hell was going in. Rather says it reminded him of a controlled demolition. So what? What else does he have to compare it to? To the inexpert eye, which I venture you have two of, it might look like a controlled demolition, but you don't even know what you would be looking for as evidence of a controlled demolition. In fact, if you look at Loose Change and similar self-published Truther silliness, they too rely heavily on evidence from people (on-site reporters) who do not have any authority or knowledge, and who can't possibly have the foggiest clue about what's happening. You are citing confused people and think it helps your case!
I've address that a lot of energy went into the building of the towers, all of them, including building 7 and it was transferred from potential into kinetic, chemical and thermal energy as it all burned and collapsed. We should not be surprised to see buried debris glowing red hot even weeks after the collapse. It is up to you to show me otherwise.
Now I appreciate that you have seen the light on Stubblebine. And you are right. Just because he has said other stupid things doesn't mean that this is stupid. That would be the opposite of the appeal to authority ("If X says something, then Y is true because X said it.") Only the pope can make that claim. (Haha.) But don't turn around and then say: "Look at all of these architects and engineers who don't believe that the WTC brought these buildings down." This is going to hurt quite a bit, Malcolm. But remember, I'm really, really enjoying it.
You say that 969 architects and engineers have signed the petition. Do you want to know how fringe, how far outside expert opinion belief you are? Screw the architects. They don't put the things up. That's what engineers do. Architects have the vision, engineers make it happen. But hell, let's make them all engineers. From my point of view, this makes your case as strong as it can be, since I consider architects the ones who design the fiddly bits around the doors.
Let's say that 969 engineers signed. Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.5 million engineers in the US. That is, and I have already been generous in giving you 969 engineers, you will acknowledge, .0646% of all engineers are in your camp. Now, you can scream, "But you are appealing to the authority of the majority!" Ah, but you are appealing to the authority of a marginalized minority of loony-toon crackpots who are WAY outside the mainstream of professional thought. And I looked through that list. This is not scientific, but eyeballing it, it seems that you have a high percentage of petroleum/environmental/chemical/electrical engineers on your list, whose opinions on matters of structural integrity are about as useless as an OB/GYN's opinion about experimental brain surgery.
The Creationists do this list thing too, not realizing that they are actually putting their necks into a noose. (See Project Steve.)
I too have studied the 9/11 question and have spent aproximately $10,000 of my own money to host a conference here in Pensacola.
Who did you have as your speakers?
Dave vonKleist: Wrote, and presumably misspelled, "9/11 in Plane Site." David Gunderson: who is known for "his belief in, and investigation of, criminal conspiracies involving cults run by government officials." Jim Marrs: Oh, I know him. He's a professional conspiracist. He's big-time. Yeah, he's well known.
Not exactly a diverse group. This is what we call the echo chamber effect. I encourage you to, the next time you drop $10,000 into a conference, that you try to get a diverse set of opinions instead of beating a single drum. And you don't get to call me closed-minded anymore.
You understand that I teach classes about conspiracy theories at the college level, right? That this is what I do professionally? That this is not my first time peeking my head into this particular girls' locker room?
I look forward to your reply and I will give it an entire post. If you post this at your site, I must insist that you post it in its entirety and have a link.
UPDATE: I wanted to add another classic Onion interview about 9/11 conspiracies. It seemed appropriate and is at the same time quite funny.
The child Bing McGhandi was found in a catnip patch under dubious circumstances. His interests include sitting on lily pads, flies, inflating his air sac to attract the female toads, listing his interests in series, and world domination. He is available for employment, tenure and parties.
Wanna talk about it? Contact me at:
littletinyfeardemon [little self-circling "a" thingy] yahoo [period] com
Good luck!
HJ
...now you have the party crashers at the White House, who were gunning for a TV show (apparently on CourtTV).
Seed Newsvine
