Joe Crubaugh: Popular Mechanics Debunks 12/25 Santa Claus Truthers

An exercise in lateral thinking, Joe Crubaugh takes on the debunkers in a Santa Claus suit. -r.

Popular Mechanics Debunks 12/25 Santa Claus Truthers

Friday, July 27th, 2007

In March 2005, Popular Mechanics published an article called Debunking The 9/11 Myths, that denigrated all unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theories while exalting the official 9/11 conspiracy fairy tale.

Since then, the Popular Mechanics article has been thoroughly exposed as hogwash, and Popular Mechanics has loosed its inferior and wanting investigative experts on another growing community of U.S. citizens who hunger for the truth about a different event: What Really Happened on 12/25? :-)

The full article is reprinted below…


Debunking "Rebunkers"

Hello Joe,

It looks like you had a similar idea to what TravisK and I did after a disinfo attack on David Ray Griffin's new book.

This A. Daniels fellow is a pro-PM (pseudo-mechanics??), DRG-hatin', Latin-quotin', "official" hard-line "debunker". He even went so far as to badger my full name out of me and call my alma mater to verify my B. Sc. in physics- guess I'm on the FEMA "Red List" now (but I'm pretty sure I already was for my activism).

You might enjoy where this "debunking" thread ended up.


I've been participating on those amazon threads...

A Daniels Jr. is definitely a disinfo shill.

Also, he must really feel egg on his face now that Griffin's book is out because Daniels wrote one of the "Spotlight Reviews" for the Popular Mechanics book. It's a long review which repeats PM's many straw-men, lies and distortions which Griffin thoroughly refutes. His PM review even devotes space to why he believes the negative reviewers of that book did not read the book... yet he proudly states he did not need to read Griffin's book because he wasn't impressed with one of his essays. That essay dealt exclusively with the WTC collapse, and Debunking 9/11 Debunking deals with much more than that. Yet he claims that the truth seekers are guilty of selective reading disorder and that he himself is a thorough researcher. What a complete perversion of logic. I have read all the materials he has read (mentioned in this post), but he has not read all the materials I have read. Daniels regularly spews the typical stock phrases meant to insult, like "conspiracy buffs" and "paranoid delusionals," "wild conspiracies," "Take a logic course" et cetera. He seems to have an almost juvenile interest in "winning." Truth seeking is not about "winning" a debate or having the last word; watch Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to see how any words can be 'spun' to mean whatever the host wishes it to mean in order for the host to 'win' or 'have the last word.'

Dear kameelyun..........

........SPUN........Like Hannity uses "support the troops".....With a yellow ribbon bumper sticker? ALL Americans support the troops! We just don't support the reason they are there, or those crooked people who put them there!

Pseudo-mechanic, know-it-all shills...

Thanks for the link to the debate with A. Daniels. It just goes to show, it doesn't matter how much logic and debate training somebody's had, if they can't explain where the molten metal in the WTC rubble came from, and if they can't explain why WTC7 came down, they really have nothing spectacular to contribute.

The best possible theory so far is that explosives were planted inside the buildings. Calling proponents of that theory bad debaters gets nobody nowhere fast. A. Daniels has only two truly logically worthwhile responses: He can either supply a better theory, or he can go back to his drawing board. It appears he went back to his drawing board.

Loved the giant lizards creating sinkholes theory, too! Hahaha. And yet, I wonder...could those reports of giant sewer gators/lizards have been evidence that the Reptilian ETs were involved? I need to go catch up at David Icke's website, as I'm sure he's already covered this angle...