Reply #11: A few words from your friendly neighbourhood debunker

[TrogL]

I'll keep this relatively short because I'm on a really kludgy browser (Netscape for AIX) and I can barely read this.

I am a conspiracy theorist. Go to my website (click below) and read all about my theories about the religious right and oil wars.

My theories change when presented with new evidence. I don't (AFAIK) mold my evidence to match the theories.

The problem I have with most conspiracy theories is that they ignore perfectly good evidence of an ordinary explanation. Chemtrails comes to mind.

The article (which I only read briefly) mentioned the Oklahoma bombing and the impossibility of a fertilizer bomb blowing off the front of the building. It didn't. It blew off the structural support for the facade and the weight of the facade ripped off the front of the building taking a lot of other stuff with it. That's why it looks so strange, as if it had been cut off with a (rather large) knife. That's why there's perfectly intact furniture and stuff right at the edge of the hole. This explanation matches the known facts, the architecture of the building and the way explosions and gravity work.

My complaint about most conspiracy theories is that they violate known laws of physics, usually having to do with gravity.

(on edit)

Oh, by the way, no I'm not a paid mole even though plenty of people on this board have accused me of being one.

What, exactly, is a paid mole supposed to accomplish?

If somebody would like to pay me, I need a new garage door opener, and a brake job on my van. Any takers?