Gee, I guess you’re correct if you suspend all laws of Physics, you shameless GD corporate whore!!! No one exists that isn’t a blithering idiot that believes you on this.

Too bad, because other things have you’ve done have credence. This is obviously selling your soul to the defense industry. You’ve lost all your credibility by selling out. Probably lost lots of respect from those that otherwise liked you. You’ll carry this ugly mark forever. You did it to yourself. SCUM.

Some of you may have read this, very old, article…
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11

I have a question, also posted as a comment there:

I realise this thread is rather out of date now but my comment above [see comment previous to this on website above] poses a question to all of you here – including the author – who think the article is a good and accurate one. I need to do a short preamble, so please bear with me:

If someone is an atheist, the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe in God (or gods). That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that homeopathic treatments work beyond placebo, that crop circles are messages from aliens and that tarot cards predict the future.

If someone is a “truther” the only thing you know about them is that they do not believe the official version of what happened on 9/11. That is it, no more, no less. They may be highly intelligent, rational, critical thinkers or they may believe that no planes hit the twin towers, that George Bush masterminded the entire thing (personally, I think this is less likely than crop circles/aliens heh heh!!!!) or any other nonsense.

Bearing this in mind, it would appear that Phil Mole and those who agree with him here are “truthers”.

If [as the article claims] you believe that “the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained [from the debris from the collapse of building 1]”, you must be sceptical of the NIST report that claims that the falling debris “had little effect in causing the collapse” which, they say, was primarily due to fires. Congratulations, you doubt the veracity of the official report – like all other “truthers”.

On the other hand, if you entirely agree with the NIST report and can see that the collapse of WTC7 is not consistent with the damage from the falling debris, then you must recognise that the author of this piece does not know what he is talking about and some, most or all the rest of the article could also be a load of cr… rubbish. Congratulations, you disagree with this article, like many or all other “truthers”.

Welcome to the club!

What I am interested in is whether Phil Mole or even Mr. Shermer himself still accept the official – as in the NIST report – on the collapse of building 7 or are they now sceptics?

If they do accept that WTC7 collapsed because of fires – not because of collateral damage – perhaps they could explain what evidence so radically changed their opinion… that way, some of us who doubt the veracity of the NIST report might be swayed.

Me, do you get all “hot and bothered” when you watch Jesse Ventura and his comical conspiracy show? (And I deliberately use the term “show” rather than “program.”) Just think what it would be like if all those conspiracy theories were true! And that’s just what Jesse and his poor, paranoid followers apparently believe! I heard a promo for it expressing a fear that the world may end in 2012! Now THAT’S scary–right? We’d all better get our affairs in order-right? LOL LOL LOL

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

However, I will not deny the historical record and human nature. The general batshit disposition of humanity and their corrupt governments have (and always will under this social paradigm) had a propensity for deliberately conducting disasters as particular means to (usually economic) ends.

And perhaps even worse than the ignorant conspiracy theorist, most fallacious and pathetic are the ones who affirm a deficient and biased government’s initial account of a complex story.

Why can’t we just admit the reality of the situation, just as it is with God: THE DATA INDICATES THAT 9/11 WAS NOT AN “INSIDE JOB,” BUT WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH CORROBORATIVE DATA TO CONFIRM THIS THEORY WITH A DEGREE OF ACCURACY THAT APPROACHES 100%.

This is hardly new, but if you do a web search for Popular Mechanics 9/11, you’ll come upon some very interesting information.