Does the Latest Research Show that ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are the Sane Ones?

Would the towers really have been pulverised like this were the official story true?

The Towers did not just collapse, they were pulverised.

Over the past fortnight, many blogs have reproduced and commented on this piece on Iran’s Press TV website, written by Dr Kevin Barrett, which begins,

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

I have known this for years, but anyway, the article concentrates on this: the most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

Building 7, as you hopefully know, was the third skyscraper to completely collapse on 9/11, despite not being hit by a plane, and in exactly the same fashion as a conventional, deliberate demolition. For this reason, it is, for many people, the biggest “smoking gun” to the 9/11 attacks being an inside job.

Not keen to unreservedly trust this state-funded Iranian English language media outlet, I did a little digging (which wasn’t too difficult at all) and found that one of the authors, Michael Wood, was keen on “Setting the record straight” about how, in his opinion, his findings have been misrepresented. Or have they?

He admits that in his studies, anti-conspiracy commenters were often hostile. This has been obvious to me all along. The entire findings from their study on online debates on articles either side of the tenth anniversary of 9/11 by Wood and Douglas can be found here. In it, the authors conclude that,

Conventionalist comments (M = 2.08, SD = 1.02) were significantly more hostile than conspiracist comments (M = 1.44, SD = 0.79), t(2172) = 16.22, p < 0.001 (see Table 1).

This is hardly surprising, as “conspiracist” commentators have likely studied the events in far greater depth than those who believe the official conspiracy theory, which leaves the OCT defenders short on intellectual ammunition and so resort to insults.

I have found the same is true when I attempt to debate with Richard Dawkins’ adherents. I want to talk about the science, but they know little or nothing about it, so in what passes as defence of their beliefs, they resort to ridiculing scripture and personal attacks in an attempt to conceal their own lack of knowledge on a matter they vehemently defend for no other reason than that it suits their preferred worldview. I was banned from Dawkins’ blog for allegedly proselytising, when what I was doing was replying to the questions posed on scriptural matters by Dawkins’ little piranhas.

When Subrosa asked me to write a guest post on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, I was happy to oblige and also delighted to discover that she was also unconvinced by the official story. The majority of the comments at her place were supportive of an alternative narrative to the official story and later on, one B.J Edwards hijacked the thread with plenty of hostility and accusations of “denial” against those who dared to disbelieve the government’s story, because as everyone knows, the government never lies!

Then, very interestingly, when I reposted the same article on this blog, a commenter called ewingsc wrote,

bjedwards has been using the same old crappy suppression techniques for years – trying to bully and ridicule people into shutting up about alternate theories to the official version of events …

The following quote from Victor Thorn sums him up pretty well :

“A paid back-room moles to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup; effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s central role in 9/11.

A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent ramifications.

Or else they’ll engage in rhetorical debates for debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.”

One thing he can’t / won’t talk about – is the fast and symmetrical collapse of WTC 7….

I have found him to be a despicable person – when I have dealt with him in the past.

Well, he certainly likes to avoid the actual issues. Clearly a “denier” himself.

Back to this latest study, and Michael Wood writes that, conspiracists mentioned more unrelated conspiracy theories positively than conventionalists did – conspiracists were more likely to say something like “9/11 was an inside job, just like the JFK assassination.”

This is patently obvious, as once you have developed a distrust of government – which is healthy and wholly natural, I would add – other events laden with inconsistencies are bound to be viewed with suspicion. JFK, despite his many faults, wanted to change how the country was run in ways which were totally at odds with the real power-brokers, so he had to go. In the polls which I have seen, most people now view the Kennedy assassination as a government operation.

What we do glean from “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories by Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas is that those they call conspiracists are more able to debate without becoming hostile, so this could indeed be used as evidence that we are more sane than the so-called conventionalists (i.e. government/mainstream media believers).

This video from the first blog I linked to ( helps explain why people stick to the official conspiracy: cognitive dissonance kicks in. Talking to people face to face about this, I found that most agree that the government gets up to all manner of evil, but they have tried to come to terms with this by saying such things as, “There is nothing we can do about it, so there is no point worrying” and “Maybe it was done by the government for the greater good” and, “They wouldn’t do that, would they?” and everyone wants to change the subject! Cognitive dissonance is hard to deal with for most folk. As for me, I knew on 9/11 itself that what I was witnessing on television did not add up, so rejecting the official tale was easy, although it took me a couple of years to start looking at the alternative scenarios. Evidence of cognitive dissonance from yours truly, perhaps, or simple laziness. I sure made up for the lost time!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Does the Latest Research Show that ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ are the Sane Ones?

  1. Rich says:

    Your comments re the Dawkins crowd resonate here at the community library – a glut of fawning books (or multiple copies of two) and tributes of various ilk have appeared in recent months glorifying the memory of ‘Hitch’, themselves recommended by Dawkins . Dealing personally with the individuals drawn to these publications, they do seem products out of the same mould.

    So, they understand nothing even of conventionally accepted science either – that makes sense;

    Not long ago I had to put up with arguments advanced by the a few of the same, regurgitations of Dawkins’ ‘religion: root of all evil’ line, at a local discussion evening. I couldn’t even call their take on history selective or myopic, or even one that evinced little understanding of the underlying /background contexts, or comparative scenarios to, the events they advanced as ‘proofs’. There was, in fact, not even the most simplistic ABC awareness (as formerly held by grammar school boys)of fundemantals such as, participants in, or basic chronology of, their evident favorites of Crusades, the ‘Wars of Religion’, etc. Frankly it was, yet again, embarrasing – but certainly, by now, not surprising.

    A puzzled request on my part to possibly provide some timescale, and hints of contributory (in fact, entirely causative) non-religious factors in their equations were met with annoyance (and of course the trademark lip-curling sneer of contempt) – especially from a chap who I know to have basically bought himself a PhD. Studied p-t, and not remotely connected with his employment, I suppose it confers upon him the distinction of a learned ‘Doctor’. He uses the title on his communications, along with a ichthys-with-legs symbol (the combination, of course, expressing his contempt of Christianity and love of Darwinism) … which surely says enough. Sadly, however, the influence of these types is becoming pervasive and appears to be ‘informing’ popular thought – the comm. lib. here is also a barometer of that.

  2. Ian says:

    It was nice of you to link to the blog post by the study’s author which points out that Barrett’s article, and therefore your post, misinterpreted the results.

    I’ve discussed evolution with you and found that you’re knowledgeable on anything that backs up your preferred assumptions and dismiss without consideration any facts that show up the falsity of your beliefs.

    I’m open to having my opinions changed, but, as yet, no conspiracy theorist or creationist has presented anything even a little convincing or believable.

  3. Stewart Cowan says:

    @Rich – I took one or two of Dawkins’ books from the library and read extracts online from others he has written. I found them overwhelmingly tedious and basically, propaganda. One of them was “The God Delusion” I suppose, but the science I was expecting didn’t make much of an appearance. Not that I read it all, I was so bored.

    This single paragraph from Christopher Hitchens’ Wikipedia page is revealing,

    “A noted critic of religion and an antitheist, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in God were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion.”[14] According to Hitchens, the concept of a God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. His anti-religion polemic, God Is Not Great, sold over 500,000 copies.”

    Those proclaiming to be “atheists” must be confused, in that case. Every one of probably hundreds of “atheists” I have debated with (or – in most cases – attempted to debate with on an intellectual level – which was impossible with most of them and which was the reason I was happy to be banned from Dawkins’ blog) not only denied the existence of God (or gods), but took delight in their misguided assumption, instead supporting new prophets, like Dawkins and Hitchins.

    Further, who, in his right mind, would be “relieved” that there is no afterlife and no loving God ready to grant him eternal joy which is unheard of in this fallen earthly realm? Any sane person would do what they could to try to achieve it, but the allure of temporary gratification is too strong for most.

    Their relief (in rejecting the Creator) is, in fact, a relief in not having to change their lives, which they obviously believe are wonderful existences, but the large number (who I have attempted to enlighten) are consumed by varying degrees of antipathy, varying from mere dislike to utter hatred of anyone they consider to be “religious”. To be harbouring so much hatred and bile is indicative of an unhappy, disturbed life. I know people whose lives have been damaged by their hatred – and inability to forgive – a Christ-like quality which would improve these people’s lives no end.

    Very often, Dawkins’ fans are at the hatred end of that spectrum, especially on his ‘Foundation for Reason and Science’ Facebook page, which is even more hate-filled than his blog and which I had to stop subscribing to, as his posts (or those responsible for administering it on his behalf), which were practically devoid of both reason and science, in favour of encouraging hatred by mentioning such issues as paedophile priests and Islamic terrorists, were aimed at constantly baiting the Dawkins faithful, who never tire of a hate-filled feeding frenzy against all religions. Ironically, of course, hatred is what they accuse religious people (usually wrongly) of exhibiting, while they are clearly masters of the art.

    But I have discussed with them at (far too much) length via the internet and you have via face-to-face contact and we seem to agree that they are uneducated in matters which influence their worldview (and, sadly, often their professional life too). For them to claim to be more educated, sane or tolerant than ‘believers’ generally is a measure of their delusion, especially when reading most of the rest of that paragraph about Hitchens,

    “According to Hitchens, the concept of a God or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization.”

    Doesn’t that sound more like he is describing the atheist systems of the USSR and China et al?

    And what about the thousands of discoveries made by ‘religious’ people? Does he render them invalid? After all, famous atheist (for perhaps the ‘wrong’ reasons, as far as he is concerned), Richard Lewontin (who is, I believe, also a Marxist), wrote this review for a Carl Sagan book in “The New York Review of Books”:

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

    So, even when the science screams “Creationism”, the evolutionists must still concoct a materialistic explanation, which usually isn’t difficult considering that most people believe such lies as, “over billions of years, anything is possible,” which is simply not true. This fraud came off the back of an 18th century, non-scientific daydream known as Uniformitarianism, attributed to a Scottish amateur geologist called James Hutton, who was a physician by trade. If he was like today’s GPs, well; need I say more? A large proportion of those I have met are Chiroptera-guano crazy, especially in medical matters!

    The last sentence on that paragraph on Hitch’s Wikipedia page states, “His anti-religion polemic, God Is Not Great, sold over 500,000 copies.”

    This, of course, comes from the Islamic call of “Allahu Akbar” and brings me to another of the atheists’ tricks: lumping all religions and the behaviour of all ‘believers’ into one group in order to discredit every faith and every believer of every faith. It is obviously a very effective propaganda technique, especially considering that religious (and agnostic) people have probably done considerably more to benefit mankind than atheists have. And caused far less damage too!

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Rich. I also recall the parting words of former KGB subversion agent, Yuri Bezmenov, in this lecture, who said that when a country loses its religion, it dies. We know this happened from various accounts in scripture when the Jews became less Godly. It is why Christianity and our Judeo-Christian heritage is being systematically attacked. Not by the KGB anymore, of course (we assume!), but those working for the global empire-builders. Chances are strong that, like so many in politics, media and ‘entertainment’, a lot of these ‘atheists’ and liberal church leaders are paid (or compromised) subverters. It’s amazing how little money some people will sell out for, like politicians and parties who accept a mere £1,000 ‘donation’ for their election campaign then they show their appreciation by making sure their benefactors’ interests are looked after. Some ghastly piece of criminal or morally repugnant (yes, there still is such a thing – for the time being) evidence in the person’s past would be an even greater encouragement for them to cooperate to preserve their freedom/career/marriage.

  5. Stewart Cowan says:


    Hopefully one day, you will begin to read my posts while wearing your reality spectacles. I only write about what I believe to be true. If I think something is merely conjecture, I say so. Unlike other websites, I searched out this post by one of the study’s authors, which points out that Barrett’s article could be construed as reading evidence into the findings, but my post, rather than it having “misinterpreted the results” as you claim, does no such thing, so I think that an apology is in order.

    If anything, time constrictions conspired to force me to neglect important findings *from this author of the report* such as that persuasive comments from “conspiracy theorists” outnumbered those who believe the official conspiracy by two to one.

    What I did write agrees with the report’s authors, when they wrote “that anti-conspiracy commenters were often hostile”, or as the report phrased it, Conventionalist comments (M = 2.08, SD = 1.02) were significantly more hostile than conspiracist comments (M = 1.44, SD = 0.79), t(2172) = 16.22, p < 0.001 (see Table 1).

    The report says, “Conspiracists mentioned more unrelated conspiracy theories positively than conventionalists did – conspiracists were more likely to say something like “9/11 was an inside job, just like the JFK assassination.”

    I applied logic – surely unquestionable, even by you – that, “once you have developed a distrust of government – which is healthy and wholly natural, I would add – other events laden with inconsistencies are bound to be viewed with suspicion.”

    My comments about cognitive dissonance are possibly what upset you the most, because it is what you are prone to: unable to question evidence which conflicts with your entrenched beliefs. In this case, that Western governments would ever stoop to such a low level of inhumanity and depravity, thus threatening to some degree your own safety. Why not, when they have done so on numerous other occasions, albeit not so dramatically (and so obviously with those with eyes that will see)?

    The same cognitive dissonance affects the psyches of many people in other areas too. I turn 50 in three weeks’ time and until the age of 41, I naturally assumed that the Theory of Evolution must be true, even though I’m a Christian. When I saw an academy with a “Christian ethos” being slaughtered by the media for teaching Creation Science (I think alongside evolution theory), I decided to look into the matter for myself, because, after all, I had never once studied the science or evidence, I had only taken it for granted, as it was taught in school, by trusted broadcasters like David Attenborough, always with TV shows, and via other popular media excuses for free speech and truth. I read Erich von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” as a teenager and such books rely on the Theory of Evolution being true, hence the belief that there must be numerous planets out there which experienced their own molecules-to-man – or superman – evolution, some with intelligent life with technology millions of years more advanced than we have, yet they needed landing strips on Peru’s Nazca Plain many miles long to land their craft on. Like that book, it’s all baloney.

    And BTW, as well as perhaps wanting to apologise for accusing me of misrepresenting the results, you could do us both a favour by addressing your cognitive dissonance. Being an honest man, as Rich, who knows me, can verify, I am not afraid of finding out the truth and admitting when I was wrong. I now admit that a certain “Truther” shock jock I used to listen to constantly is most likely a double agent: paid off or compromised like those previously mentioned to misdirect the masses.

  6. Ian says:

    “I only write about what I believe to be true.”

    What was that about cognitive dissonance? You’re making a stand for your beliefs, and finding only the “facts” that support your world view. When I’ve had time, I’ve investigated the evidence you claim is so convincing. Invariably, it has been shown to be wrong, subsequently disproved or totally misinterpreted by you and your fellow travellers. Those who you think you’re disproving always present a more coherent, realistic and understandable version of events, because they’re basing what they report on facts, not making up facts to support what they want to believe.

    I have, more than once, found that the facts didn’t support what I believed. It’s not easy, turning around a belief you’ve found is wrong, but it makes more sense than digging deeper into the lies and hoping reality will go away. You don’t name them, but is “a certain “Truther” shock jock I used to listen to constantly” Charlie Veitch (, a man who, when presented with the evidence, fought past the cognitive dissonance and had the guts to admit he was wrong? I’m impressed by the way you don’t have the courage of your professed convictions and have had to make up a meta-conspiracy about him being a double agent rather than face the fact that you’re wrong.

    For me, it’s not about belief. I understand that your arguments, and the “evidence” that supports them, don’t stand up to scrutiny. Facts are facts, and they’re not on your side.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian, what we believe to be true is the sum of our experiences and knowledge and how we interpret these and our willingness to use those, as well as our logic, to challenge our conventional understanding when new information is presented to us. Cognitive dissonance comes from failing to address new information correctly out of fear for our personal safety or the mental distress produced. What I believe to be true about 9/11 is very much based on solid evidence and sound logic, after years of study. You believe that hundreds of inconsistencies and coincidences can add up to reality, which is why I claim victory over diagnosing your cognitive dissonance. There is no logic in believing that it was sheer coincidence that terror drills involving the 9/11 crash sites were going on at exactly the same time as the real attacks (same situation with 7/7, the OKC bombing and most other false flags). This is to help the real plotters pass unnoticed.

    What “facts” about the official story do you expect me to believe? That the list of 19 terrorists was real, despite several of them showing up alive and well and in other parts of the world immediately after? That the laws of physics could be suspended on one day only? That the world’s most sophisticated and highly financed intelligence agencies suspected nothing, despite being warned by intelligence agencies from other countries?

    There is no logic in believing that Flight 77, a Boeing 757 flown by complete amateurs (who had trouble flying Cessnas in Florida flying schools) with impeccable precision, could leave no evidence for public viewing, but a very small hole in the building (before the wall collapsed) and barely a scrap of evidence on the lawn outside (just very small pieces of carefully planted “evidence” to pretend a plane had crashed).

    Charlie Veitch of the ‘Love Police’ came out as a self-confessed shill. He was a disinfo agent – he admitted it himself. He had no courage of his professed convictions because he was a liar, not averse to smoking a joint on his videos, so there was no cognitive dissonance on his part. The cognitive dissonance is in those who believe the likes of Charlie Veitch, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura and David Icke are going to save them. That’s why they are powerful assets – seemingly fearless advocates of freedom and truth who will stand up on our behalf and defeat the evil in the world, so we don’t really have to. Just argue about it online instead and achieve nothing.

    So, again, you have misread the situation.

    Many “facts” taken for granted are no such thing – some of the members of the official 9/11 Commission Report resigned in disgust after being refused actual facts from official sources. They were hampered from finding out the truth because the facts were concealed, so other “facts” could be used for the final report instead. Important witnesses were completely blanked out.

    In my reply to Rich, evidence which supports Creationism is suppressed by the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution theory (they’re the only ones likely to be given the generous grants and airtime, hence their “facts” become taken for granted, even though they are not facts, but opinions based on suppressing the evidence in favour of their preferred worldview).

    How is any of this reason to believe that the “facts” we are told by the mainstream mandarins are facts at all?

    You say that “Those who you think you’re disproving always present a more coherent, realistic and understandable version of events” is dismissed in the study I linked to.

    The only fact is that you don’t know fact from fiction and debating with you is time I would rather spend with people who are open to overcoming the fear of their preconditioning.

    Just one test for you: when you watch the collapse of Building 7, do you think it looks like a typical controlled demolition, like we have seen many times on television? Yes or No?

  8. Ian says:

    You sound like you’re the one in denial. You don’t want to discuss with me any more because you know you don’t have a strong enough case.

    You could stop telling me you’re the one in possession of all the facts and actually try to present some of these magical proofs. But you know that you’ve tried that before and found that I don’t fall for them. I do what you claim to, and check them out. So far, you haven’t hit me with anything that hasn’t been disproved by people who know what they’re talking about.

    Take a step back and look at your own statements. You have to convince yourself that everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what you want them to is part of some shadowy conspiracy. Does that sound like someone who knows he’s right, or someone who doesn’t want to face the fact that he could be (is) wrong.

    Last time I watched the collapse of Building 7 it looked nothing like a controlled explosion, and I’ve watched my share of demolition videos online and on the TV.

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    No, I don’t want to discuss with you because I have too strong a case, but you will not admit that things are even slightly amiss – not even remotely unusual, so there is nothing to discuss. All I get is your attacks on alternative theories and nothing to back up your own belief in the OCT. Same applies to your comments on my post on the 10th anniversary I linked to. You even came out with that tired cliche,

    “9/11 “Truth” is an insult to the people who died ten years ago.”

    So, according to you, the many family groups seeking truth on behalf of their dead relatives must be doing so to spit on their graves?

    This again shows how far removed from the facts you OCT apologists are.

    I don’t expect you to “fall” for anything; I expect you to recognise what is obvious or at least discuss the anomalies with an air of suspicion as everyone I know personally (except for one bloke) has when presented with the evidence. And I know what I’m taking about – as the survey shows, two-thirds of persuasive comments are by the “conspiracy theorists” because people like you have little in the way of persuasion to offer (mainly insults, as also shown in the study). You still wouldn’t believe it was a government op if Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld came right out and admitted it.

    Yes, you keep repeating the same lies about my lack of evidence and about your contrary evidence, which never actually makes an appearance. You’re all mouth, Ian, and are heading for the first person to be banned from this blog by constantly wasting my time with your deception.

    “You have to convince yourself that everyone who doesn’t believe exactly what you want them to is part of some shadowy conspiracy.”

    That’s just some nonsense you’ve made up. Most people who believe the OCT simply lack knowledge/interest or like you, suffer from C.D.

    For you to say that the Building 7 collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition shows you are either in denial or, like B J Edwards, employed to waste people’s time talking tosh on blogs. Like him, you bring nothing to the table but “din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos” and like Dawkins’ ramblings, it’s boring me and any future posts from you on the subject are liable to be deleted, because you offer zilch in the way of defence of the OCT, because you know nothing about the matter – your cognitive dissonance causes you to automatically reject evidence, reason, motives, logic, physics, government misconduct and much more.

    Read your comments here. You have said absolutely nothing to try to back up the official narrative, ergo debating with you is fruitless. You have nothing to say about how Building 7 collapsed or how a Boeing 757 managed to completely disappear inside a building after being piloted by amateurs in a manner most professionals wouldn’t have been able to manage.

    I asked you if you thought that the collapse of Building 7 looked like a typical controlled demolition to see just how far your denial extended to, which is all the way, which proves you have a problem with real evidence – evidence used to help nearly 2,000 engineers and architects to demand an independent enquiry (which means many thousands more have doubts, but don’t want to risk their jobs by saying so.) But Ian Pattinson knows better than the experts. I think not. Either address your denial or stop bugging me. Please.

  10. Ian says:

    Okay Stewart, if you insist.

    A quick search found this video- about Tower 7. It’s only three and a half minutes long, watch it.

    If you ever did metalwork you’ll know that heating affects the strength of steel. Quench it at the right moment and you temper it. Do it wrong or heat it too long and you’ve got a useless tool. If you’ve ever put the metal lid of a jar under the warm tap to make it easier to remove then you can understand that metal expands when warmed. These aren’t strange ideas like hidden thermite (how did it not go off in the seven hours the building burned before falling?), but things almost everyone can understand from personal experience.

    This rather long forum post- looks at the WTC plane and points out a lot of evidence that shows that it really was a plane that hit the building. I have a suspicion that a lot of this isn’t shown on the conspiracy sites because it would derail the desired narrative. Some of the links no longer work, but what’s there is convincing.

    And the building 7 collapse looks nothing like a controlled demolition. How many controlled demolitions require the building to burn for hours beforehand? Where are the blasts from the explosions? It collapsed in on itself because of the weakened frame, as explained in the video- a far more believable explanation than the complicated explosive planting, timed detonation version you propose.

    Stop trying to insult me because I’ve gone out and found other evidence, which I find more convincing than the evidence you’ve presented. That you can do nothing more than call me a dupe and threaten to ban me unless I accept unquestioningly your version of events demeans you. You want me to do what you’re accusing me of- accept a version of events that goes against the evidence I have seen- the irony is overwhelming.

  11. robbo says:

    Hi Stewart,

    Now’s it going? Hope you’re well. Do you have a link to the discussion where you got banned from Richard Dawkins website. Any chance you could post it?

    Also do you actually read and keep up with the arguments against your position? I really can’t see how you can keep up your crazy beliefs in the face of all the debunking that’s been done. ALL of your arguments against science and for conspiracy theories and religion seem to me to be pure bunk. I really think it’s a shame that you gobble all this rubbish up. Tell me would you rather be wrong and believe what you do and give up reason and truth?

    Warm regards.

  12. Rich says:

    Taken as read, and with approval, Mr Cowan, that you refuse to even wallow in the moral mire that any transaction with the above Robbo would constitute …..

  13. johnnyrvf says:

    @ Rich. Apparently but I cannot confirm this, I read in an article that the original design parameters of the World Trade Towers were to include the ability to withstand the collision of not one, but TWO Boeing 707 passenger aircraft; now the engineers who designed these towers had a great deal of knowlege of steel framed buildings and all the properties of all the materials utilized, including the elasticity of the steel under many loading and stress conditions, I have a reasonable grasp of metals, using them in my work and your description of the the ductility and hardness of heating steel completely ignores the issue of exactly what type, composition and production process (of which there are a great many) For example the steel used in the construction of the turret of a Challenger 2 main battle tank is infinitely more superior in every way to that used in a cheap bit of college steel for basic education purposes. Basically those towers, which were designed in 1967, were literally built to be able to withstand almost inconceivable structural abuse without collapse, that each one was completely destroyed by a single aircraft hit of smaller dimensions than a 707 in such a short period of time AND all the steelwork from the buildings had been shipped to China for scrap within 10 days strikes me as rather unusual, especially as the U.S. Govt. had announced an investigation immediately after the event, but then I am just someone who questions everything I find when they are a little out of synch with normal accident investigation practices.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    @Ian – The fact is that buildings just don’t collapse like these ones did without foul play (on top of the original foul play) and for you to deny that an entire skyscraper can fall symetrically at almost freefall speed onto its own footprint in no way looks like a demolition is staggering. I don’t have another three and a half minutes to devote to what I have studied for a decade.

    @Robbo – I refer you to Rich’s answer.

    @Rich – Thank you for saving me time. This is another chap plagued with cognitive dissonance.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    @Johnny – the Towers were designed to readily accept multiple hits from jets. But not from government stooges planting bombs in the basements to weaken the supporting columns (multiple witnesses) and using thermite/ate or whatever it was which really turned them into powder on the way down.

    And yes, America’s biggest crime scene was shipped off to China ASAP. But I bet Ian has something positive to say about that.

  16. Ian says:

    “I don’t have another three and a half minutes to devote to what I have studied for a decade.”

    Stewart, you’ve pretty much come straight out and admitted what I’ve been saying all along. You’re guilty of doing what you accuse me and other realists of- you don’t want to see any evidence which casts doubt on your position, and will dismiss it out of hand. I’ve done you the honour in the past of going off and investigating the claims you’ve made. I’ve always found they were misrepresentations or had long ago been proven wrong, but at least I bothered to investigate them before telling you you were wrong.

    johnnyrvf- cook a Challenger 2 turret over a fire fuelled by jet fuel for a while and I bet you’ll find the steel isn’t as tough as it started out. You wouldn’t expect that turret to perform as well as an uncooked one.

    What intrigues me about 9/11 “Truth” is the need to make up all these complicated narratives about the day but ignore the complexities of the decades long build up and the often well-meant actions that caused it and the horrendous opportunism and idiocy that led to two wars and more terrorism in its wake. The events of the day itself are surprisingly simple, it’s the stuff either side of it- which you want to obscure behind ever more convoluted tales- that deserves closer scrutiny.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian – you don’t understand. I have devoted so much time to this already it must have cost me tens of thousands in lost earnings (being self-employed). Chances are I’ve already seen the video or the arguments it is fabricated around (a thousand times before). I have been totally unconvinced by what supporters of the OCT have said for a decade.

    It is a totally different scenario to yours. I am not avoiding information out of fear it may change my mind, but because I have heard all the arguments for the OCT till I’m bored stiff. There isn’t suddenly likely to be any new info in that video – just the same disinformation I have heard over and over till it bores and sickens me.

    Okay. All right. Just to stop you adding further to the boredom, I have just watched the video, and as fully expected, was full of the usual disinformation. It states complicity that, “Building 7 collapsed simply due to uncontrolled fires”.

    The rest of your comment is senseless, considering you believe the OCT:

    “What intrigues me about 9/11 “Truth” is the need to make up all these complicated narratives about the day but ignore the complexities of the decades long build up and the often well-meant actions that caused it and the horrendous opportunism and idiocy that led to two wars and more terrorism in its wake. The events of the day itself are surprisingly simple, it’s the stuff either side of it- which you want to obscure behind ever more convoluted tales- that deserves closer scrutiny.”

    Fortunately, real researches have proven this to be a lie. Your main defence of the official conspiracy is a lie. How does that make you feel, Ian?

    And look at the film of Building 7, before and during the collapse. The fires were nowhere near as widespread nor nearly as intense as those other fires where none of the skyscrapers completely collapsed.

    “The complexities of the decades long build up and the often well-meant actions that caused it and the horrendous opportunism and idiocy that led to two wars and more terrorism in its wake.”

    More total nonsense. The history of the geopolitics is discussed at length by “Truthers”. Like how Saddam was built up as a friend (even kept to reign on after the first Gulf War) then finally used, invaded and killed. And how bin Laden was a CIA “asset” in Bosnia and could easily have been captured, especially while in the American Hospital in Dubai for his kidney problems and the politics of just about every country, especially the agenda going on in the US and UK.

    And it wasn’t “idiocy” it was all planned. 9/11 was the “New Pearl Harbor” catalyzing event called for by the Neocons in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” in 2000. That’s why “Truthers” talk extensively about those plans, yet you think otherwise, which is why I wonder why I bother to try to get the truth through to you. I now doubt you have utilised a single brain cell in trying to discern the truth from the available information.

    “The events of the day itself are surprisingly simple, it’s the stuff either side of it- which you want to obscure behind ever more convoluted tales- that deserves closer scrutiny.”

    They are surprisingly simple (but not how you mean), but you still don’t get it. Maybe I’m just rubbish at describing the obvious. And opposite to what you say, as usual, what deserves scrutiny, like the lies which got us into these wars, is also uppermost in Trutherland, unlike conventional politics.

    Also, Ian, you didn’t come back on the evidence (i.e the actual WTC buildings) being shipping to China ASAP!! Normally all evidence is retained in plane crashes to check (in this case) the columns and beams to see what structural failures caused the collapses – and to piece together what was left of the planes.

    Now come back with more nonsense like this and I’m not going to waste any more of my time answering it, because if you haven’t understood by now that you have been duped, and been a willing accomplice in your own duping, I really cannot say any more to help you to understand and my time is pressing heavily on me just now.

  18. Ian says:

    Irony is being called a dupe by someone who has fallen for two of the biggest lies going- creationism and climate change denial.

    No matter how much you deny it, you’re bringing the same cherry picking of evidence and blind disregard for proper science to 9/11 as you apply to them. It’s entertaining to see you flail around denying basic physics and eyewitness statements, but also a bit sad that you would waste so much time on nonexistent problems when there is so much genuinely wrong with the world.

  19. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hoorah! Well done, Ian. Somewhere in your subconscious mind a rejection of the official story has occurred. I have demolished your “holy grails” and a part of you now understands that your belief in the OCT is groundless.

    I know this because you have changed the subject and gone on a totally different line of attempted attack.

    You know nothing of Creation Science, nor of evolution science and have fallen for manmade climate change just as millions wake up.

    You’re still asleep there, but at least you’re beginning to see that you were wrong about 9/11. Confront those fears and you’ll become stronger.

  20. johnnyrvf says:

    @ ian. climate change denial…….oh dear, IF you read the true skeptical sites none of the commentators ‘deny’ the climate changes, it has been changing for 4.5 billion years, neither do they ‘deny’ that CO2 has an effect on temperature, just the outcomes; the difference is that most people who have an opinion are scientists themselves and do not accept that ‘consensus’ is in any way a part of the true scientific method and therefore question the so called settled science, which is an oxy-moron because in every other branch of science new discoveries lead to the old hypothesis being abandoned for new one, not continually being pushed out as a form of left wing propaganda. As to steel becoming plastic under the stress of excessive temperature, in this cased caused by burning kerosine, can you specifically say how many gallons of fuel were the aircraft carrying and was the heat from the ignited fuel spread sufficiently across the whole building to be able to cause simultaneous catastrophic failure of all the steel supporting members? I think you will find to do that requires a lot more fuel and a lot more precision of where that fuel is aimed at than a plane can carry let alone the chaotic spill of rupturing fuel tanks that occours in a crash.

  21. Ian says:


    I’ve accepted that you’re never going to let anyone suggest that you might be wrong, and you’re never going to accept any evidence that goes against the story in your head. You claim to be employing scientific methods, but you deny scientifically proven facts. Your denial of the possibility of simpler, more realistic and less convoluted explanations for the events of 9/11 are in exactly the same vein as your denial of evolution and climate change. So the comment is perfectly valid. You’re consistent in your desire to ignore the facts, whether over proven science or controversial events.

    As I’ve kept pointing out, I have examined some of your claims for creation “science”, found them wanting and pointed out their flaws to you. Your 9/11 claims are no more believable or realistic.


    Pretending to understand and accept the scientific method doesn’t change the fact that you’re in denial. The balance of evidence shows that man made activity is changing the climate. You can side with the 2% who think otherwise, but my money’s on the 98% whose results show that we’re changing the climate. They keep studying the subject and finding out more about it, but they’ve yet to show that the extra CO2 we’ve put into the atmosphere isn’t the key factor in warming the planet.

    Did all the steel supporting members in the towers collapse at once? Really? Where did you get that from?

    Several floors of each of the towers were seriously damaged when the planes hit them. They then burned at high temperature, weakening the supports that were left. When these failed, they gave way and the upper floors collapsed on the ones below, crushing them. Tell me, what collision damage was each floor of the towers designed to withstand from above? Was it the equivalent of up to a third of the building’s own mass falling under acceleration by gravity? Even if it only fell the equivalent of one storey (say 10 feet) that’s going to be a lot of force.

  22. johnnyrvf says:

    @ ian. denial of what? I stated that the climate has been changing throughout history, I did not mention what I think, when I read and digest proper data that makes me reconsider my position I do so. I quite accept that humankind is having an effect on the climate, what I question is how much and that the use of computer models all of which give different results and practically all of them are diverging from the observed data are not a solid foundation for policy decisions that are spending billions on a situation we as a species do not fully understand and more importantly cannot have any real effect on as the damage is apparently done. Models perform very well when all of the parameters are known, e.g. models used by engineers to study the results of stress fatigue in complex multi type material constructions. Just because 98% follow the herd does not mean they are correct, look at Colin Chapman one of the founders of Lotus Cars, when he introduced a rear engined car in the then Formula 1 racing world at least 98% of the people involved in that industry laughed and said it would never work, his car kicked their arses so hard that by the FOLLOWING season every SERIOUS car constructor had adopted his theories, and STILL do, so I’ll remain independant to the mainstream until they can prove conclusively that they are 100% correct.

    As to the force of weight of the building collapsing, it is what I thought as I watched live on T.V. that fateful day, I had an early finish and was home in time to see it as it happened, now I am not so sure, if someone could show me the precise mathematical load and stress calculations for that scenario by the engineers who designed the building and they support ( pun intended ) what I once thought was the reason for the rapid collapse and I believe they would have been calculated, than I will revise my opinion; as for the building to telescope as it did would very strongly suggest that all the supporting columns did indeed fail simultaneously, but if there is properly researched evidence otherwise I am open to suggestion.

  23. Stewart Cowan says:


    Will you EVER get it? I’ve proven you wrong each end every time. Proven wrong. Get it? Proven wrong. I keep proving you wrong. Here we’ve had you gloating over turncoat Charlie Veitch, who went up in your estimation only on the basis that he said what you wanted to hear – not based on facts – just what you wanted to hear.

    Do you get it? You only want to hear people who reinforce the decision you made when you saw those Towers collapse and it left an indelible mark on you that cannot be removed with any number of facts. That’s your cognitive dissonance, of course. That Veitch did yet another 9/11 hit piece for the BBC then it comes out he’s a disinfo agent just does not register with you. Because it’s not what you want to hear.

    Then we had this video I must watch, which I knew would be nonsense, so eventually, I gave in and watched it just to prove you were wrong as ALWAYS.

    And as always, you were wrong, but don’t admit it – ignore the actual evidence, which doesn’t register in your head anyway.

    You have no answers. You use no reason. You cling onto others who say what makes you feel good.

    Then you come on here and dare say such barefaced lies about me ignoring evidence.

    I would ban you, if it didn’t mean you would write your own post claiming that I gave in and lost to your intellectual superiority. That, I believe, is how far removed from reality I think you have allowed yourself to wander over the years.

    It is clear how much you hate the notion of independent thought. So, you believe the BBC’s version of absolutely everything because then there’s no dissonance and everything is easily explained and people who ask questions based on the lies people like you believe must, therefore, have something wrong with them.

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    Just in case you missed the gist of what I said there: I KEEP PROVING YOU WRONG.

  25. Ian says:


    All you’re proving now is that the answer to your original question is No.

    You just can’t accept that you’ve failed to convince me, your arguments and your evidence do not stand up to scrutiny and quite often aren’t grounded in reality. There’s your cognitive dissonance- you’ve convinced yourself so much that you’re right that you can’t understand how someone can do what you say you’ve done- look at the evidence and come to a conclusion- if they’re not saying exactly what you want to hear. You have such a hard time understanding that you convince yourself that people who see things differently are part of some bizarre meta-conspiracy. Charlie Veitch can’t possibly be someone who changed his mind when presented with different information, he has to be a “turncoat” and “disinfo agent”.

    There are conspiracies out there. The carbon companies are conspiring to confuse everyone about the facts about man-made climate change (it’s happening, and mitigating it would benefit everyone except the oil barons). The current Government is conspiring to destroy the things that make this country great whilst telling us its all the fault of immigrants and benefits claimants. Every religion ever has been a conspiracy to keep the poor poor, women subordinated and the wealth in the temples. These are rather banal and insidious conspiracies, though, and they don’t allow you to blame some long put-upon minority. You’ve fallen for at least one of them.


    You understand that there’s a problem, but you’re not willing to do anything about it until you know exactly, to the last detail, what it is. By which time it will be too late to do anything about it. Do you honestly think that’s a sensible approach?

  26. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian – I have demonstrated time after time after time that you have lost the argument. The case is closed. I am not interested in “convincing” people whose brainwashing is so powerful they won’t allow the evidence (or lack of) to influence their cognitive processes.

    Can’t you understand you have NO “evidence”? I keep blowing your alleged evidence out the water. Then you move on to your next bit of “evidence” and I do the same. I’ve been doing it for years. Just reread this thread alone and you’ll see. You believe lies and when proven wrong, simply ignore the fact.

    Veitch has admitted he’s a disinfo agent, but even this isn’t enough for you.

    And not every religion is a conspiracy, so wrong as usual. That’s why our Judeo-Christian culture has been under vicious attack for decades – the truth poses a danger to those real power-brokers. Christ taught self-control, which is no good to those seeking state control where the individual suckles off the state, rather than is independent and family-orientated.

    Now, enough, please.

  27. johnnyrvf says:

    @ian. I am involved in Engineering, not the super exotic variety like C.E.R.N. or the I.T.E.R. fusion project or even more mundane stuff like aircraft construction, but what I am involved in is precise, it was designed to work in a certain way and my occupation is usually repairing a lot of very crude and basic ‘ modifications ‘, repairs and botches by people who should stick to what they know rather than pretending to know what they don’t. There are certain symptoms which are easy to read and often require only a little work to rectify the fault, others require major dismantling to truly comprehend the problem. Which brings us to global warming, I do not think that there IS a big problem in the sense that the political advocates without remorse for their hypocrisy claim, I think there IS a problem with environmental issues caused by so called renewables, bio fuels etc etc quite apart from the almost deliberate ignorance displayed by the U.N. of truly appalling vandalism by govts. around the world e.g. the Ilse of Sumatra via the Indonesian govt. in 2006, looking at the big picture, which 99.999% of govt and NGO officials cannot as they are blinded by their hubris and feelings of self importance; all they see is the tax payers trough, which as a species means we will disappear LONG before life on Earth does, even if we ‘served’ Gaia as some of these deluded charlatans think we should.

  28. robbo says:

    cognitive dissonance eh?
    oh the irony.

  29. Steve says:

    Greetings. Some thoughts.

    I think people who dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand (or use the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ to describe anyone who doubts the official version of events) are being naive and unfair. Yes a lot of the theories are indeed nonsense, some are not nonsense – actually quite credible* – but, as it happens, false. But plenty of others have been shown to be true through the course of time.

    (*E.g. I don’t think Diana was murdered, but neither do I think the idea ridiculous – I may well be wrong and the report was one big establishment cover-up.)

    In the case of 9/11, my judgment is that many aspects of the conspiracy theories have been successfully debunked with reason and science (missiles hitting the Pentagon, explosives in the towers, collapse of building 7, etc) and I believe the sequence of events probably happened much as the official investigation states. But with one big exception: the identity of the people who funded and organised it. In fact I think it’s quite possible that all the other strands of 9/11 conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation to smear by association those entertaining the possibility of any kind of insider involvement.

    Let me come out and say it. I can’t shift the awful suspicion that al-Q and the security services, at the very very top level, are actually the same thing. And that what they organised for 9/11 was an event to trigger all the mess we have seen play out over the last 12 years with regard to the invasions, the Arab Spring, Islamism and Islamophobia. I have no proof of course, and it’s possible I’m letting a narrative fit retrospectively onto events – but even back in 2004 I was reading things that sat very uneasily with me (in particular something that Michael Meacher wrote on Omar Sheikh – ). I’ve considered this more and more recently with the curious way our involvement in the Arab Spring seems to be encouraging al-Q and Islamism throughout the Middle East. Is it really so far-fetched to speculate that al-Q might be a creation of the CIA, even if 99.9% of al-Q members are unaware of this? Are the Muslim fundamentalists being played for geopolitical purposes?

    Just something to chew on.

    On a completely separate note, I’m an atheist (one who lacks any belief in God as opposed to one that claims that God doesn’t exist, the latter being a claim no man is able to make) and I have a question for the believers on this blog.

    Why do you believe?

    I’m sure all of us would agree that we can never prove God’s existence in an empirical sense – that, after all, is why ‘faith’ is required rather than simply calling it ‘fact’. But have you never looked at how all the different religions around the world are clumped together into geographical regions and reflected on how extraordinarily coincidental it is that you just happened to be born into a country or family for which “the correct religion” was the dominant one?

    Do you ever reflect on the high likelihood that, had you been born or raised in, say, India for instance, you would be just as convinced that Hinduism was the right one and all the others wrong? Or Islam in Iran? Or Roman Catholicism in Italy? Or going back in time, the various polytheistic beliefs of Ancient Egypt? After all, I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of believers don’t exactly carry out a thorough analysis of all the different religions around the world (and through the ages) and pick the one based on its highest truth value. Mostly, people don’t reason themselves into religion in this way, they remain the religion of their parents or their country. But my point is, can you see how incompatible this might be with the idea of objective truth?

    Also, do you ever reflect on the pay-offs of remaining in a religion – even a religion that is, in your view, false? Pay-offs like not having to disappoint or insult your family, not having to remove yourself from a very enjoyable community experience like attending Church, not having to deal with the possibility of having been wrong for so many years, not having to escape the comfort blanket that religion affords (I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way – to believe in life after death and to believe there is a God looking out for you must be enormously comforting), and so on? Do you not recognise how these factors might also get in the way of your ability to make an objective judgment about what is true?

    I hope none of the above has offended anyone. I’m just curious to know whether you seriously consider any of these issues? I sometimes get the impression that they are only ever considered through the prism of “ideas put there to test your faith” which is a shame because that’s so clearly a circular argument that it’s no wonder you would find it difficult to move on from a religion.

    Oops, it’s me bedtime. Look forward to reading your answers. All the best.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks for your comments, Steve.

    I heard that the term “conspiracy theorist” was dreamed up by the CIA to try to discredit those who believed that the JFK assassination was an inside job. Certainly, it’s been a very effective propaganda tool to this day, which has turned the most rational of theories into total jokes in the minds of millions, so they refuse to believe the evidence or even look at the evidence.

    Al Qaeda was an invention of the US “security” services. Bin Laden was a CIA “asset” in Bosnia and their early videos feature actors because there were so few real recruits. They grew organically with real recruits and picked up on the name themselves, as that’s what the Western “news” agencies were calling them. And yes, of course, 9/11 was the “New Pearl Harbor” event they needed to make those changes in the Arab countries and dismantle freedoms across the West as well.

    Why do I believe in God? I just always have and as I have aged, it becomes increasingly obvious, through life’s experiences and how things work out and it cannot all be coincidental. And the more I study science, the more I realise that life is far too complex for the Theory of Evolution to be true.

    I was a Mormon, which was quite a nice life in many ways – not least, the camaraderie and support, but it’s not true, so I left and I lost the benefits. I know people who went the other way – into Mormonism – and lost their entire families as a result. The people born in those other parts of the world often just believe what their culture teaches them without them ever thinking about it, which is the reason I believed in the Theory of Evolution until I was 41, because I had never been exposed to opposing evidence – evidence, like “conspiracy theories” people are encouraged to ignore or laugh at by those who get all the media attention.

    But I’m sure you’re right that many people stay in a religion to keep their families happy and their lives together. And I haven’t been to any church for over three years as they have all become too far removed from the scriptural truth, in my opinion.

    As for a comfort blanket, yes, it can be very comforting indeed, but also feel like a millstone round your neck a lot of the time. I think that’s the part which keeps millions away.

    Why the Christ? Nobody else claims to have died for me to wipe clean my sins in order for me to live in the presence of a perfect God.

  31. Steve says:

    Hi Stewart, thanks for your reply.

    It wouldn’t surprise me at all if that term conspiracy theor”ist” was dreamed up by those seeking to discredit sceptics of the official version of events. It certainly seems potent in any discussion on such things.

    Am aware of al-Q’s history back to Afghanistan when he was useful in battling the Ruskies. I wasn’t aware Bin Laden operated in Bosnia.

    Quite surprised that you doubt the theory of evolution by natural selection given how analytical you sound in your other posts. Even Popes and Archbishops have now been forced to concede that it appears the most likely mechanism by which life evolved. I say “forced” – I don’t mean by coercion because generally speaking they’re pretty strong-minded and dogmatic folk and they continue to believe many things that are at odds with the zeitgeist. On this though, I mean forced by sheer weight of evidence.

    Of course the fact that a Pope or Archbishop believes something doesn’t automatically green-light it as true – that, after all, is merely the argument from authority which is something any decent rational person should reject. But it does throw some further weight to the argument when people who have a vested interest in believing the opposite (that life did not arise through evolution) nevertheless concede that it is true despite deviating from what their predecessors believed and what many of their congregations expect.

    So, may I ask, what is it that you don’t believe about evolution by natural selection? Do you think it to be a conspiracy theory by non-believers, involving fabricated evidence?

    Let’s leave natural selection for a minute. Do you accept the truth of ‘artificial’ selection? Do you know that human breeders can turn a wolf into a Pekinese in a matter of mere centuries? In a sense, there was nothing natural about this – the great diversity of dogs we see around us today are the result of humans deliberately breeding them for different traits and purposes. Dogs are actually a great example here, because the difference between any two breeds of dog gives us a rough idea of the sheer amount of evolutionary change that can be achieved in less than a millennium, which is minuscule on the evolutionary scale. But this obviously begs the next question: how many millenia do you think there has been available for life to evolve (even if only hypothetically)?

    Are you someone who believes the world began less than 10,000 years ago? Because if so, you are rejecting a truly gargantuan amount of scientific evidence out of hand! From very different fields. Not just from biology but from geology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, archaeology, etc. What are the odds of all that being false and your holy texts being true? (versus your holy texts being fiction like all the others, while the mountain of verifiable evidence from different fields of study being true?)

    On the matter of evolution by ‘natural’ selection…

    Do you doubt the glaring patterns in the fossil records and believe fossils to be planted evidence? If so, by whom?

    And what then of the rest of the evidence?

    Do you doubt the measurements from radioactive clocks and isotopes? This points to evolution.

    Do you doubt plate tectonics and the distribution of animals on islands and continents? This points to evolution.

    Do you doubt the living examples of natural selection such as bacteria? This points to evolution, and indeed the Lenski experiments demonstrate evolution occurring before your very eyes.

    Evolution by natural selection was established as a correct theory even before molecular genetics came along and served to confirm even further that life evolved in this way.

    SO I’d be interested to know which of the above you reject and why?

    Would you be open to changing your mind if you could be convinced by evidence, or is its falsity necessary for your religious beliefs? (and if the latter, can you not see the potential vested interest there and how that might cloud your judgment?)

    Warm wishes to you.

  32. Curious about Creation? Want hard facts and genuine science?

    Try these websites: and

  33. Stewart, what do you make of this: ? I agree with what Peter Hitchens wrote today about Syria, and what could easily turn into a re-run of WMD in Iraq as a false premise for war. If – IF (it’s presently unverified) – there was a chemical weapons attack in Damascus, I’m inclined to doubt Assad’s guilt and to attribute responsibility to the anti-Assad jihad (the rebels).

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    Before Iraq, we had lies like Saddam’s henchmen throwing babies out of incubators to help get the masses on the warpath. The whole Muslim world is to be reined in and so I don’t believe a single word about what the latest “bad guy” has allegedly been doing.

  35. Steve says:

    Richard Carvath

    Hello. I agree with you about Syria. It seems the West is intent on regime change there. There are many reasons to doubt Assad’s guilt, and apart from anything else, it makes absolutely no sense for him to be using chemical weapons now. I don’t claim that it’s impossible, mind – just that it seems deeply suspicious.

    His troops were winning on the ground, he was maintaining a high level of support amongst his people, the UN inspectors were already over there, AND he would have been acutely aware that by using chemical weapons he’d be providing the perfect pretext for US/UK military action. He would know he would be crossing that red line. Why on earth would he do something like that at this juncture?

    Conversely, we know that the “rebels” (the motley crew of bloodthirsty extremists sponsored by the US/UK) have indeed used chemical weapons, on at least two occasions. Yet we don’t seem to bothered by that.

    I just think the whole thing stinks. But there we are. Iraq proved that popular opposition in the UK and around the world couldn’t prevent an illegal PNAC-planned invasion going ahead.

    Syria, I guess, is just part of the long-term goal to remake the Middle East (although I’ve yet to work out how replacing secular dictators with Islamist rulers is in the West’s interests – perhaps they don’t care and it’s all about war and profit and keeping the engines running, or perhaps it’s to keep the little people fighting each other instead of rising up to tackle those with the real power…)

    On the matter of creation: I have read through several pages of that website and not spotted the hard facts and genuine science to which you refer, only faith and dodgy science. Feel free to quote me something, otherwise I’m afraid I will have to respectfully disagree on that one!

  36. Stewart Cowan says:

    Steve – it’s because I am logical and analytical that I reject the TofE. Some of the most famous preachers of the 19th century believed in it, such was the presumption that it must be true, but we now know so much more about the complexity of life than they did then. Now we know that anything is not possible over billions of years – not to this degree of complexity, anyway.

    Nearly every branch of so-called Christianity has been subverted to the point where it is barely recognisable as Christianity IMO.

    I have written quite extensively here about my beliefs on the Theory and reasons for them – look at the categories, like “Richard Dawkins”. It is partly conspiracy. Lenin said that, “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism,” and this Theory has convinced so many people that there is no Creator, despite there being not a bit of proof for molecules-to-man evolution.

    Natural selection is real enough, but that’s totally different from the overall Theory.

    The point about dogs is that dogs are still dogs and won’t be anything else. For a dinosaur to turn into a bird, for example, is, in my view, impossible. Just for a reptilian lung to transform into an avian one (which works completely differently) would and could not have successfully have gone through all the required stages from one perfectly functioning organ to the other by random mutations. Just not logically feasible regardless of timescale.

    What evidence is there that the universe is billions of years old? Boffins are now saying that it expanded from sub-atomic size to its present size in under a second!

    In other words, the universe went from nothing to everything, like drawing a curtain, just like it says in the Psalms.

    Evolution and the “Theory” of Evolution are totally different and most of your other questions I have covered elsewhere if you want to read my writings. Long ages comes from a non-scientific philosophy devised by a part-time Scottish geologist.

    I have now been studying this for over eight years and it becomes more glaringly obvious that the Theory is wrong. And when scientists confirm what scripture says, like the universe went from nothing to its present size in as long as it takes to draw a curtain then it adds more credibility to scripture. Non-believers should be seeing through the myth of Darwinism by now. I’m sure he would himself. He had his doubts back then.

  37. Steve says:

    anything is not possible over billions of years – not to this degree of complexity

    It seems to me that you are perhaps committing that classic error of assuming that because something seems impossible, it is impossible. This is understandable, given the difficulty we all have in fully comprehending the vast expanse of time within which evolution has had to work. However there is evidence aplenty that the theory of evolution by natural selection is as much a scientific fact as the theory of gravity is a scientific fact, and the fact that to some it ‘seems impossible’ is, to put it bluntly, neither here nor there. Do you take issue with the evidence? If so, which evidence and what do you dispute? I am hearing you state things like “it couldn’t possibly happen” over and over, but you’re not providing concrete reasons that show that to be the case. You’re just asserting that it’s the case.

    Molecules to man evolution seems incredible, but have you never studied the journey all the way back? Through worms to fungii, to amoebozoans and bacteria? It’s true that we don’t know how the first molecules began self-replicating but there are some fascinating theories about this, and it’s certainly no invitation to fill in the blank with “God did it” – that well-worn phrase that has been the response to just about every mystery throughout history.

    The fact that Lenin’s agenda involved pushing atheism doesn’t mean that atheism is wrong or that Dawkins et al today are involved in some sort of conspiracy. He is an advocate for atheism, a stern critic of religion and an expert in evolution by natural selection. But I’m not aware of him being involved in a conspiracy. Perhaps you could elaborate?

    The point about dogs is that dogs are still dogs and won’t be anything else.

    But dogs absolutely would branch off into a new species given enough time and the right habitat. In the case of dogs, the selection process is now almost entirely artificial rather than natural, and that’s because they are now mostly domesticated. But if you look to the wild dogs and the wolves and related animals, there is no reason to believe that they won’t continue to evolve and branch off into new species given sufficient time – timeframes far vaster than we can fully grasp.

    For a dinosaur to turn into a bird, for example, is, in my view, impossible.

    We have very credible clues in the fossil record that birds and dinosaurs are related. We now have even better – the genetic evidence that they are related. Which part of this evidence do you dispute, and why?

    Just for a reptilian lung to transform into an avian one (which works completely differently) would and could not have successfully have gone through all the required stages from one perfectly functioning organ to the other by random mutations.

    It absolutely can and did happen. Again, there are countless examples, not just of lungs but eyes and all sorts of other organs that undergo huge changes (over long timescales) in how they function. This is precisely how natural selection works. Again, you’re adopting the position of “can’t happen, seems impossible” but that’s the thing about science, it trumps what we might refer to as common sense or intuition.

    What evidence is there that the universe is billions of years old? Boffins are now saying that it expanded from sub-atomic size to its present size in under a second!

    Not quite – the Universe has been expanding steadily ever since, so it didn’t reach its present size in a second, however it’s true that cosmological studies point to a vast period of inflation in a near instant. But the age and origins of the Universe are a completely separate question to the age and origins of life on Earth.

    And when scientists confirm what scripture says, like the universe went from nothing to its present size in as long as it takes to draw a curtain then it adds more credibility to scripture.

    Then given that scientists don’t say it reached its present size in the blink of an eye, does that reduce the credibility of scripture? Or do we lapse into a bit of confirmation bias at this point?

    Non-believers should be seeing through the myth of Darwinism by now. I’m sure he would himself. He had his doubts back then.

    Nothing wrong with having doubts, and it’s hardly surprising given that no-one else had come up with the theory at the time (aside from Matthew and AR Wallace) but Darwin’s doubts were primarily concerned with whether or not to publish in the religious climate of the time – not whether his theory was true or not. Wallace had some interesting things to say about religion (although he went and ruined it towards the end of his life by becoming a spiritualist!)

    You mentioned Richard Dawkins in your post. Which of his scientific titles have you read?

  38. Steve says:

    Just following John Kerry speaking about Syria…

    “The use of chemical weapons in Syria is undeniable and morally obscene. The use of the weapons violates a historic ban.”

    (Except when the “rebels” do it)

    How many more innocent lives are going to be lost thanks to our countries’ military action? This New American Century is turning into a nightmare for occupants of the Middle East. We just can’t seem to help ourselves (we being our leaders, obviously).

    Afghanistan… Iraq… Libya… [Egypt]… Syria…

    Iran and Pakistan will be the ones that could really tip us into WWIII (and the latter into civil war across Europe).

  39. I suspect that our MQ-9 Reaper drones could be operating above Damascus in the next few months… and how soon until the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles against the British public becomes commonplace: ?

  40. Steve says:

    I agree Richard. A scary but very real prospect. UAV’s are already in use for crowd surveillance. Step by step…

  41. I’ve not the time at the moment, but perhaps somebody should put FOI requests in to every police force in Britain to see what they have to say/hide/deny about UAV operations. It could make for an interesting story.

  42. johnnyrvf says:

    @robbo. 41 comments and you singled out mine :-)

  43. robbo says:

    maybe it’s not irony. pathos perhaps?

  44. johnnyrvf says:

    @ So you mean you sympathise with my position? or just think I should be pitied?

  45. Ian says:


    It is ironic that one of your problems with renewable energy is that it might get some subsidy from government when gas, oil, coal and (particularly) nuclear have been subsidised to the tune of billions, if not trillions. For all the money nuclear has received, it’s now cheaper to get a unit of solar generated electricity than it is to get one of nuclear.

    Renewables, without the support that fossil and nuclear have received, are on the verge of being competitive with them. It would be stupid to keep propping up energy production methods which have been proven to make the situation worse- or create waste that won’t go away for millennia- when we could promote cleaner solutions at a fraction of the cost.

  46. johnnyrvf says:

    I have to disagree, there is NO way that renewables wind, solar, wave etc can ever match conventional electricity generation for cost or reliability period; the fact that many European govts. are drastically cutting back or completely terminating subsidies for technologies that have proved to be pathetic, ( a wind turbine even under the most perfect conditions can NEVER produce more than 52% of it’s face plate capacity and in reality only produces 25% ) suggests that that reality is dawning and the outmoded ideology of renewables as they now are is going to cost a great deal more than lost votes. I would suggest you search for L.F.T.R. or Thorium to find out how a politically spiked fission reactor system, developed in the 50ies and 60ies which can burn Uranium and Plutonium to close to 100% instead of 2% and use fuel which does not have to be reprocessed to the same extent as a P.W.R. therefore diminishing the intensity and half life from many thousands of years to a few hundred is being resurrected and researched in India who have a solid fueled experimental Thorium reactor up and running rather than a Liquid Fluoride salt reactor as the Chinese are developing, the technology was all but cracked by 1971 but Nixon was pushing for fast breeder reactors and the political climate of the time prevailed, when Ford got in he cancelled the fast breeder project and Carter went for renewables. The other project inching toward fruition is Fusion, 1 litre of water would power a city of several million people for a year, they are further down the road than critics would like to admit to, the J.E.T. project site at Culham is worth reading, lots of science there, the I.T.E.R. project near Marsailles site is far more P.R. based but reports construction progress on a regular basis, when these 2 technologies come on line, and you can bet France will be fighting to have the 1st commercial Fusion reactor anywhere, the 50 billion euros the project will have cost will make the U.K.’s investment in wind the most moronic waste of tax payers money ever perpetrated. In France where 85% of electricity is Nuclear generated, the latest’s administrations foray into renewables is a luxury that whilst expensive won’t lead to the deaths of thousands of people because of fuel poverty for millions caused by the astronomically high energy bills to pay the subsidies of green ideology coupled with a very intermittent electricity supply. Germany the loony greenies of Europe are building 26, count ‘em, new generation coal fired stations as they wake up to the fact that the 100 billion Euros squandered on renewables has NOT done anything to make their supply system use less CO2, be more reliable, or provide cheap energy; other European countries are waking up to the scam, there are even some M.P.’s in the U.K. who are seeing the light but I wonder if the closure of all those coal fired stations BEFORE the infrastructure is rebuilt ( other than those standby gas generating stations for when the wind don’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine ) will change more peoples ideologies when they wake up to the fact that 1st world countries rely on cheap energy, rather than the biting cold vs hunger argument……..

  47. Stewart Cowan says:

    Steve – thanks for your comments, but I simply don’t have the time to answer them all – sorry. I have done so many, many times. I’ll pick up on this re. a reptilian lung being able to transform into an avian one by random mutations.

    It absolutely can and did happen. Again, there are countless examples, not just of lungs but eyes and all sorts of other organs that undergo huge changes (over long timescales) in how they function. This is precisely how natural selection works. Again, you’re adopting the position of “can’t happen, seems impossible” but that’s the thing about science, it trumps what we might refer to as common sense or intuition.

    You’re stating this as fact, which it isn’t. There isn’t a single verifiable example, never mind “countless”. It’s mythology. Even evolutionists I’ve debated with (the few sensible ones) insist it is still a “theory”. Just one wrong mutation (and very few mutations are beneficial) wipes out all the previous alleged advances and the creature cannot breathe, dies and of course cannot reproduce and pass on all those previous alleged advances, and as Darwin said, the evidence is not in the fossil record – still isn’t – and won’t be found now, millions of excavations later. And science doesn’t trump impossibility. And the scientific process requires evidence, of which there is insufficient.

    Not quite – the Universe has been expanding steadily ever since, so it didn’t reach its present size in a second, however it’s true that cosmological studies point to a vast period of inflation in a near instant. But the age and origins of the Universe are a completely separate question to the age and origins of life on Earth.

    No, they are saying this. Of course, it means something different as per the age of the earth, but if it was previously thought that nothing could move faster than the speed of light, when some now believe material can move billions of light years per second then, if true, blows the lid off the whole charade.

    Then given that scientists don’t say it reached its present size in the blink of an eye, does that reduce the credibility of scripture? Or do we lapse into a bit of confirmation bias at this point?

    Like I said, some now are. The Old Testament also alludes to a spherical earth many centuries before “scientists”/natural philosophers caught up.

    And Darwin did have serious doubts – scientific ones – e.g. the aforementioned lack of evidence in the fossil record to back up the theory.

  48. Stewart Cowan says:

    Re. Syria – they were on the target list after 9/11. The chemical weapons were probably from the rebels (or more false flags).

  49. Stewart Cowan says:

    Now that Ian has lost the WTC7 debate – he could have been man enough to admit it, rather than just changing the subject – he’s moving onto ‘green’ energy. Who’d have thought he’d believe in manmade climate change too and that it’s not another massive con, devised to overtax us further, deindustrialise the West and kill off many more people in cold spells with hugely more expensive bills and regular power cuts when we meet our totally unrealistic “carbon commitments”?

  50. Ian says:


    you lost when you threatened to block me for disagreeing with you. We’ve moved on to green energy because I pointed out that you have little to no credibility when you claim to approach any subject scientifically because you’ve fallen for creationism and climate change denial, two things that have been scientifically proven to be false.

    As an example, part of your reply above to Steve shows a massive misunderstanding of how evolution works-

    Just one wrong mutation (and very few mutations are beneficial) wipes out all the previous alleged advances and the creature cannot breathe, dies and of course cannot reproduce and pass on all those previous alleged advances

    Mutations affect individuals, not whole populations, so your assertion means nothing. The individual with the detrimental mutation dies, but the rest of the population carries on breeding. Also, there’s more than just mutation driving evolution- one mechanism is that existing attributes can be amplified across generations if they mean that greater numbers of the population with those attributes survive to breed than those without.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>