Bah Humbug and Ad Hominem Attacks!

My primary interest is not in 911 at all. It is Peak Oil - and Peak Oil from a Norwegian viewpoint. Since July, I have regularly blogged about it at However, it became apparent to me that the Peak Oil and the 911 were two sides of the same thing.
Consequently the question of 911 has come up in my blog. Indeed it has been mentioned in two other prominent Norwegian blogs that also concentrate on Peak Oil. The response from our readers brings out the worst in people. They can get very angry about the issue (just as they can with Peak Oil, though even more so).
Yesterday (23rd September), my blog entry was about the Thomas-Scott Affadavit. To me the idea that the Twin Towers might not have been so structurally sound as we all thought, and that this would have led to a financial catastrophe is one of the more interesting things to come out in recent months. Obviously, Thomas-Scott's claims must now at some point be tested, preferably in a Court of Law, and if true this raises a whole load of new questions. Some of these are not necessarily conspiratorial either. I mean one of the mysteries about the towers is how they actually came down. Now, leaving aside the incendiaries and explosives that many of us believe were planted in them, it has often been noted that the lower (undamaged) floors should have offered more resistance to the "collapse". Unless, that is, as Thomas-Scott Gordon tells us, the towers were already compromised....
However, that be speculation I can engage in on another post. Thomas-Scott Gordon's revelations were the subject of my Norwegian blog post. I was astounded by the sheer poisonous response it provoked, and a little disgusted by it.
On my blog I let people disagree with me - which they not infrequently do - but I prefer it that they at least have an argument with which they are opposing me. The prejudices of another blogger were clearly apparent. He wrote that I should rather get myself a job, perhaps get a shave, and sarcastically commented that a little fresh air would be a good thing for me too. Not to be outdone one of this blogger's circle said that maybe I should also take a shower!
Now the laugh is actually on him, because although he no doubt picked up on an earlier posting of mine that I had lost my job and was consequently not driving as much to save money, he clearly assumed that that meant that I sit on my backside all day doing nothing. In fact, although it is true that I shall shortly be without work, until the end of the year, I do in fact have a job and am still working. Consequently, not only can we see that this person just wanted to discredit me because - Oh and let us note only because I question the 911 issue - he hadn't got his facts right anyway. Either way, whether 911 Truth be true or not is not influenced by my supposed personal merits (or lack of them).
So when you then start asking yourself, as I being a philosophical guy often do, why people say these contemptuous things, you come to the conclusion that it is because they deep down know that 3000 people or so have been snuffed out of existance, and do not want to confront the issue. Instead they get angry with anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Ad hominem attacks, even where these are totally without any foundation in facts, are therefore acceptable to such people as a means of shutting up what they do not want to hear.
It is with some relief that I saw the You Tube "Everybody Knows (Except the Mainstream Media)" Despite the ridicule and down right contempt we are shown, there has been a paradigm change - that is beginning to sound like a cliché - but the truth is that lots of people, everywhere, are questioning the official story. I happened to give a lift to three hitch hikers in Porsgrunn last Wednesday, and lo and behold 911 became the hot subject of discussion in my car.
Yet the mainstream, though there have been programs about 911 truth over here, is prone to the attacks against it that we have noted above. Indeed another comment left on my blog yesterday drew my attention to what I can only describe as a Norwegian "Popular Mechanics" article, that supposedly "debunked" the conspiracies. In my view it did anything but... but that is another story. It nevertheless demonstrated the same patronising "tone" that I had observed in my blog, towards those of us who dared to think such absurd thoughts.
I am going to write my own attack on precisely this article, which frankly I think very little of. For example, the writer makes fun of the claim that some of the hijackers are still alive, asking why - if this be true - they have not been arrested! To me this displays not only a stupidity, but an absolutely despicable attitude towards the truth. It should be obvious that, if a hijacker is alive, then obviously he could not have been involved either and is therefore innocent. It should be obvious that what we were told was wrong. No matter that, rather than have your world view threatened by this little inconvenience, arrest these people immediately for having the affrontery to make you feel uncomfortable!
This Christmas, I think we shall have to look at poor old Scrooge in a new light. Come back Scrooge, all is forgiven! Bah, humbug!

Good luck with your trolls.

Good luck with your trolls. Sounds like you have as many idiot Norwegians as we have idiot Americans. (Proportionally speaking).

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt>

Truth is truth

What you do matters or they wouldn’t be attacking you. Every day you get stronger and they get more confused and frustrated. Personally, I don’t respond to ad-hominem attacks – if the bastards want to get a response from me they have to put some work into it.

You can change the world and not even know you did it. The next person to read your blog could be the key that changes everything. Don't stop, we need you.


keep up the good fight.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.



"To me the idea that the Twin Towers might not have been so structurally sound as we all thought, and that this would have led to a financial catastrophe is one of the more interesting things to come out in recent months."

More pretexts, excuses, & rubbish! No wonder your readers are angry with you. I guess WTC-7 was very unstructurally sound--it just imploded for the hell of it.

Not So

I see, so we are not to question the structural integrity if someone comes with an affadavit that implicitly does so - we are simply to discredit the writer without examining such a claim?

The fact is that that claim has now been made, and if you have knowledge to discredit it, you should be doing just that Sir - and not anonymously either - instead of justifying ad hominem attacks.

What you are saying in effect, is that you support DOGMA. That the the Twin Towers were structurally sound period. End of discussion.

Lastly, your statement about WTC 7, well forget the towers and the poor 3000 or so people whose bones were literally blown kingdom come and landed on rooftops of New York banks, if you are willing just to assume that WTC 7 was imploded then logically you must have agreed with the Truth Movement (just for the hell of it of course). Such an implosion would have taken weeks to arrange, and most certainly was not just done on impulse especially on a day like 911.

So actually it isn't rubbish at all. I am asking questions. The thing to do, if you disagree is to answer the questions that have been raised, or at least show that such questions be invalid.