Written by Adam Taylor

February 15th, 2012

Editor’s note: This is Part 1 of an extensive report by researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by Popular Mechanics in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit+your+own+reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.

Full artice here: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-...

.
[Talk about a crappy debunking piece (especially that last one -- all of one line). He must have written this in all of 15 minutes, just for the sake of having a title claiming "debunking", but which does nothing of the sort. And he clearly knows little about the history of the movement or the evidence, cites very old claims that disappeared long ago. Maybe the Guardian is going downhill.]

9/11 conspiracy theories debunked

See also:
September 11 conspiracy theories continue to abound
and
The 9/11 decade

For the past 10 years 'truthers' have claimed 9/11 was part of a bigger conspiracy – but does the evidence stack up?

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 September 2011 16.17 BST

The twin towers were destroyed by controlled explosion

Is my burdgeoning paranoia gotten to the point where I see a sudden effusion of anti-9/11 Truth blogs, websites, etc...?    Has anyone else noticed this phenomenon?  And they span from the ridiculous the even more ridiculous.  

Many of them share several most annoying traits, such as the lack of ability on the part of the reader to retort or respond to their claims--they have no "leave a comment" link--or "contact us," link, or if they do, they lead down a blind alley.  Of course, the other trait they all share is their utter disregard for logic, and the facts of the case.  Some lie with great aplomb as if their statements are handed down from God Almighty, (i.e., "Most high rises have concrete inner core or concrete-encased outer columns, or both. The World Trade Center had neither."  Guess it was held up by cardboard and paper clips. From, http://www.maniacworld.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html)   

The Ultimate proof NIST is lying about WTC7 Over 1,000 Professional Architects and Engineers agree that the mysterious collapses of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 need to be re-examined and investigated. The NIST report is proven to be unscientific and false, using evidence NIST either ignored or gathered and used itself. I used the public domain video created by NIST, available here: http://www.youtube.com/user/usnistgov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org FireFighters for 9/11 Truth: NFPA 921 on High Order Damage: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=221 Shear Studs: A Case Study: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/sixty-state-street/constru... Van Ramiro's SuperThermite experiment was courtesy of Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" TV Show on TruTv (formerly CourtTV) from Episode 2 on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master. It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!

(Thanks go to Dan Noel)

RG

Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic
I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
2. Double standards in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.

I found a new blog today, devoted to debunking 9/11 truth. It contains papers such as this one:

"There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon JamesB"
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf

Has anyone attempted to tear these guys a new orifice?

" ... The Journal of Debunking 911 is a free online publication dedicated to educating the public on the collapse of the three World Trade Center structures on September 11 2001.

SUBMISSION OF PAPERS

Submit a PDF or Microsoft Word Document to the Journals E-mail address. Check manuscript length limitations listed below. Papers under review, accepted for publication, or published elsewhere are not accepted. E-mail the Journals Department for JD911 for complete instructions for manuscript preparation. Submit your documents for review at submissions@jod911.com

Errata. Errata are corrections of errors that appear in print. If errors are serious enough to impair understanding or mislead readers, authors should submit errata to the JD911 Journals Department. Errata are published in earliest available issue.

Disclaimer

Download WMV (512x288, 67MB):
http://rapidshare.com/files/290272954/911wasaninsidejob.wmv

For background, factual backup and sources for every line of this song see:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/10/yet-another-911-was-inside-job-...

They sure tell some whoppers over there, and most of them are pretty transparent, but boy does this one take the cake.

In response to an OP's legitimate points which indicate controlled demolition, Mackey says the+following:

NIST did look for signs of explosives, and found none. Take a look at NCSTAR1-3.

It isn't "scientific bullying." You're just wrong.

Hmm. Really?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

This kind of modus operandi is nothing new for OCT defenders.

Mark Roberts, Apologist for EPA Lies

"No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." - Mark Roberts, leading "debunker"

In my opinion there are two main types of debunker. There are 'Shills' who are paid government propaganda assets tasked to talk down the 9/11 Movement for Truth and there are 'Saps' who are their hangers-on. These are often poor lost souls who suffer from moral cowardice and are only too willing to swallow whole the poor fare offered by the Shills. These are by far the biggest group of debunkers.

In the immortal words of Mike Rivero;-

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS201956+11-Sep-2009+PRN20...

Sheen Challenges 9/11 Truth Debunkers to Larry King Live Debate

Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:00pm EDT

'We're not hiding,' states Sheen as he calls out McCain, Hannity, Limbaugh and
O'Reilly

AUSTIN, Sept. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Appearing on The Alex Jones Show today to
discuss his video address to Barack Obama, Charlie Sheen has challenged those
who have publicly attacked him for speaking out on 9/11, particularly Meghan
McCain, Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, to debate him on CNN's
Larry King Live.

The Growing Absurdity and Desperation of Conspiracy Theory Debunkers
Bill Lindner
September 07, 2009

As more of the truth about the U.S. Government's complicity, if not involvement, in the attacks of September 11, 2001 comes to light, and more "Scientists" and "Psychologists" attempt to add their "expertise" to debunking the obvious truth, the pathetic attempts at keeping the corruption and the truth hidden have become more rampant -- despite the fact that the Government's 9/11 fairy tale has almost completely unraveled -- and the majority of Americans still have questions that need to be answered.

A lot more: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/118037

Scootle Royale
Debunking the Debunkers
August 30, 2009

Were the three skyscrapers on 9/11 demolished? You decide?

Music: Mundtot - Stammtisch

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

Cal State Long Beach's online zine, www.Daily49er.com, recently featured an opinion piece that bashes 9/11 truth:

http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/some-conspiracy-theorists-sept-11-skept...

Feel free to join in the discussion to enlighten this fellow and his readers!

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of the blog Debunking the Debunkers.

John-Michael is the creator and administrator of 911debunkers.blogspot.com where he and Bradley debunk the "debunkers" of the 9/11 truth movement. He has been a 9/11 activist since late 2004, and is a grassroots organizer listed on 911truth.org for the state of Indiana, is a member of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth AE911Truth.org video team, and a founding member of the central Indiana chapter of the activist organization We Are Change.

Stewart Bradley is an artist, documentary journalist, and political activist living in Lancaster Pennsylvania who runs an independent mulit-media studio. Stewart was already investigating covert government operations before 9/11 and since 9/11 has re-dedicated himself to exposing the public misconceptions behind the attack. In 2004 he wrote and produced a 9/11 docudrama titled "The Proof"and has been actively promoting 9/11 research through his website, blogs, videos, and internet debates. More at: http://bradleyinfotainment.com

Topics discussed include the "debunkers" take on the new scientific paper, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, and defence thereof.

The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of, and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, which states that one way to achieve this goal is to...

"Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."

Direct download: visibility911_debunkers.mp3

"This is a blog for those like myself who support the discovery and promotion of 9/11 truth but who have lost interest, stopped participating, or are generally frustrated with the movement, due to intentional disruption, ineffective leadership, counter-productive strategy, partisanship, or the promotion of poorly founded speculation."

"I hope to air out the deep frustrations of many people who want the truth but feel that the movement is not facing it's own truth. In the process I also hope to offer reasons for optimism and continued investment."

http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com/

As a 9/11 truth activist, I read a fair amount of what is written about 9/11--whether in the mainstream media, the alternative media, or on sites that I have learned to trust. Frequently the comments are polarized: those of us who know the awful truth and another group, much angrier, seemingly younger and MUCH less well educated: those who are enraged that anyone would even SUGGEST that the government lied to us about 9/11.

Who are these people who are apparently oblivious to the hundreds of well documented lies from the Bush administration?

Here's a clue. A company that advertises blog armies to "flood the zone with comments from professionals who are ready to put your talking points on the blogosphere 24/7." Next time you're engaged in a nasty debate with a devotee of the OCT, who seems to have unlimited amounts of time to rebut your every point in the most scathing way possible, you might just be arguing with a member of one of these paid blog armies.

Here's the ad:

http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/01/paid-blog-attack-armies-flood-blogs-w...

Hello friends,

My main question for fellow 911bloggers is this: should we tear them up in the comments section (so far 99% infested by debunkobots), and answer the questions they want us to answer (some of which are extremely infantile, like "why haven't the perps killed Dylan and DRG?"), or do we even acknowledge their presence? Obviously I'm acknowledging it here since I'm writing this entry, but should we take them out on their own turf? Is it even worth it? Do you think we'd convince a fence-sitter who might happen to be reading the Counterknowledge website?

________________________________________________________________________________________________

15+questions+for+9/11+"truthers"+now+need+to+answer

Jon Gold
12/4/2008

During my recent debate with 9/11 Debunker Pat Curley, in his closing statement, after listing a plethora of different theories from a whole spectrum of individuals, including many I do not endorse, he asked, "would anybody in the 9/11 Truth Movement say, “well, OK, we were wrong?" if, in fact, a new investigation found that we were. He then answered his own question by saying, "and the answer is “of course not," so stop pretending that all you want is another investigation - you want another investigation that comes to the conclusions that you believe."

Just to show him that we're not the close-minded people he thinks we are, here's a list of some things we might be wrong about.

We might be wrong to think that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush should have wanted to investigate anything and everything that led to the horrible attacks of 9/11, instead of trying to "limit the scope" of those investigations, and fight against the families who wanted them, and rightfully so.

(See also Juan Cole's report on the "no-hunt" story: http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/afghan-article-says-us-bin-ladin-hunt.html -rep.)

Cannonfire.blogspot.com is a popular "liberal" blogger who is now buying into a "conspiracy theory";

"I do feel certain, or at least persuaded, that the American people were never told the full truth about what happened at Tora Bora."

This is someone who, in a links list titled "The Real 9/11 Truth Movement", links to Debunking911.com to "debunk" demolition theories- and in the same links list, links (several times) to articles at http://www.911Review.com that debunk the "no 757 at the Pentagon" and other disinformation. Strange disconnect, as 911Review.com also debunks the disinformation that plane damage, jet-fueled office fires and building mass turned the WTC towers into rapidly inflating dust clouds and small piles of rubble.

The other day I made a short movie entitled, "Ask Any "Debunker" to address "debunkers." Walter Ego, on a site filled with "debunkers" known as "JREF" posted my movie.

David Ray Griffin Debunks Popular Mechanics
from the Osaka 9/11 Truth Conference, November 1, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvU8El8Lzho

Facts to the contrary, there just are no conspiracies

David Lindorff has finally stuck his foot in his mouth, over at Commondreams.org, a notorious anti-truth gatekeeping site. I suppose we should all just abandon even the hope for justice, truth and reconciliation and take orders from the establishment Democrats?

Lindorff mixes irrational hyperbole with some revisionist whitewashing, all in an effort to put those pesky "conspiracy theories" behind us -- in the service of "the left." This tactic was employed previously by Alexander Cockburn among others, and is quite simply shameful.

Crimes of the State

With the release of the NIST final report on Building 7 we can safely say that the government remains committed to the ongoing cover-up, and that crucial evidence was simply ignored, fairy tales were manufactured, and that's good enough for a lot of media. Perhaps a super-majority of media.

As media, "the press," will not perform its function as society's government watchdog, and will not pursue the gaping holes in this wizard's curtain, it's basically left to us -- you and me -- to clear up this matter for our fellow citizens. We are at a serious disadvantage, and yet the task is not so daunting as rabid "debunkers" would have you believe.

Let's defer to one of their own, the former head of NIST's Fire Science Division (the federal government organization which produced the sham report linked above).

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

By Arabesque

Mark Roberts is most well known as a 9/11 truth "Debunker". One of the more common statements that he repeatedly makes is:

"The 9/11 "Truth" movement has made a few hundred significant claims in the past few years, none of which have been true. Don't believe me? Then name a significant claim that you get right, and prove it."

GeorgeWashington's excellent essay a couple weeks back hit the nail on the head as to how to answer the claim, asked by newbies and exploited as a main debunker talking point, that if 9/11 were an inside job, the hijackers would have been Iraqi.

This reminded me of a post I made on Amazon over a year ago, while debating a guy called Steve Farrell. Steve was an interesting guy by the way. He started out being very civil, so you believe he's a genuine newbie. But a couple hundred posts later, after his points had been continuously answered or rebutted, he became increasingly hostile and JREF-like. Anyway, in an arrogant tone, he said to me:

I started to write this as a comment in reply to a comment appended to George Washington's excellent post, but I decided to I see that this subject confuses many, so I will weigh in with a few observations. Before I do, some important reminders for us "conspiracy theorists":

http://omniadeo.blogspot.com/2008/05/conspiracy-theory-101.html

Here is the question. All of us are dedicated to promoting the truth about 911. That means combating disinfo wherever it occurs ... but most especially in venues where it can have a more negative effect. OpEdnews is read by many many people. Care to defend the cause?

Anybody up to it? Defending what we believe. Fighting the 'Employees'......?

Debunking the Controlled Demolition Theory

by Arthur Scheuerman Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

This article is from my book "Fire in the Skyscraper"