Comment Policy: Comments are allowed, but please keep them focused on the topic of the post you are commenting on. Comments and/or spam not pertaining to the subject of a particular post will most likely be deleted.
happy to announce that I’ve successfully had a paper accepted and published at
the website Scientific Method 9/11. It’s an updated version of my paper Other Collapses in Perspective. In it, I present scientific explanations for why
other steel structure fire-induced collapses are not comparable to the WTC
buildings. It’s obvious that fire could not have brought down the Towers on
9/11. But don’t just take my word for it; read for yourself here and decide if I’m
PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection
with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue.
There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right
before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders
Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer.
So now we’re back to explosions? Remember two years ago, Gage
debated Chris Mohr at the University of Colorado (Boulder) where there was
Further along in the debate, after Gage
showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris
Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely
Gage: Well, of course they do. One is
using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate,
an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive,
first blatant problem I have to call Pat out on is the fact that he cites a
supposed problem with Richard Gage’s argumentation, when it’s my arguments that are the focus of the
article. Notice that the top of the article reads “Written by Adam Taylor.”
That’s because I wrote it and make my own arguments. While ae911truth has
generously posted my articles at their site, the content of those articles is
mine. Since Pat apparently can’t tell the difference between something I wrote
and something Richard Gage said, it’s difficult to see this as anything but a straw-man
there’s no contradiction to begin with. I explained
this two years ago to Pat’s buddy James, who also has problems
understanding arguments presented by the other side. Pat’s characterization
of my article as “supposedly” debunking Popular Mechanics is also interesting, since
he doesn’t actually point out anything I got wrong. I’m not particularly
surprised by this, but it doesn’t make it any less irritating.
amusing than Pat’s hand-waving, however, is a comment
left by one of ScrewLooseChange’s frequent visitors “Richard Gage's Testicles.” He
says of me:
Oh good, Gage got more unpaid out of
Adam Taylor. Taylor’s an obnoxious little pseudoskeptical anarchist wannabe,
judging from his videos.
And as usual he misses the point. The
absence of physical evidence of explosions outweighs reports of
"explosions" in any number.
far as I’m aware, RGT is the first to refer to me as an anarchist, so now I can
check that off the list of names I’ve been called online. And pseudoskeptical
am I? How so? What characteristics
of a pseudoskeptic have I exhibited? Have I made judgments without full
inquiry, such as Pat has done here? Or do I frequently use ad hominems, like
RGT does here and elsewhere? Or have I used double standards in the application
of my criticisms, like both Pat and RGT are doing here by not criticizing Popular
Mechanics for the massive
amount of flaws they’ve made? And contrary to what RGT asserts, I haven’t
“missed the point” at all regarding the physical evidence of explosives. We’ve
covered that issue extensively
at the 911Debunkers blog, and we’ve addressed attempts to
invalidate that evidence as well. Me thinks the man should reconsider
who’s the real pseudoskeptic here.
not the first to point these things out, and it shouldn’t be necessary for me
to have to keep pointing them out,
but as I said at the beginning, Pat’s apparently made up his mind, and that’s evidently
never going to change no matter how many times it has to be pointed out to him.