9/11 Debunking for Dummies

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

by StooBradley



This video is also posted at visibility911.com.

Comments and intelligent discourse are welcome, insults and ad hominem attacks are not. THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE!

No one is stopping you from making your own blog, you won't see us coming to attack you.

9/11 Missing Links

Friday, September 4, 2009

I recently rejected a comment promoting the film 9/11 Missing Links. In my opinion this film is nothing but insulting racist propaganda that provides "debunkers" of 9/11 truth with ammunition.

I will not publish comments that promote this film as the "real truth" of 9/11.

Simon Cowell, Gordon Brown and 27 Brainwashed Corporate Whores Present...

So Simon Cowell's latest crime against music is out: A cover of "Everybody Hurts" performed by Leona Lewis, Rod Stewart, Mariah Carey, Cheryl Cole, Mika, Michael Buble, Joe McElderry, Miley Cyrus, James Blunt, Take That, Jon Bon Jovi, James Morrison, Alexandra Burke, Susan Boyle, JLS, Westlife, Kylie Minogue and Robbie Williams. All proceeds from this fellatio-fest go to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal, so go buy it and support the militarization of Haiti!

The song was Gordon Brown's idea apparently. Since when did that unelected, mass-murdering tyrant, whose glass eye has more warmth and feeling behind it than the real one, give a crap about innocent life?

I think the celebrities mean well, many of them were just ordinary people a few years ago, then again so was Lady Gaga. But what's screwed up is the fact that, instead of giving up any significant amount of their own excess money (Miley alone is almost a billionaire), they decided to leave it up to us ordinary people during times of economic recession. Why can't celebrities ever donate to a middle-class relief fund?! Although if Bush, Clinton, Obama and Brown were in charge of that I wouldn't want them to!

The more I learn about this Haiti situation the sicker I get. Funny how noone cared last year when they were eating cookies made of dirt...

Rant over.

PharmaWhores: The Showtime Sting of Penn & Teller

This blog continues below the video...

Not about 9/11, but a nice insight into how mainstream media debunking pieces are made. Dr. Leonard Horowitz was approached by producers of Penn and Teller's Bullshit!, who were presumably planning on doing a hitpiece on critics of Big Pharma and modern medicine. He tried to film them interviewing him to document what goes on behind the scenes and, not surprisingly, they left.

Penn and Teller did a 9/11 hitpiece a few years ago. This video exposes how they clearly aren't going into these things from a neutral perspective. Media manipulation, suppression and ad-hominem attacks is all these so-called "sceptics" have. It's kind of pathetic really.

I remember listening to an old radio podcast a few months ago in which Penn and Teller interviewed Trey and Matt from South Park and the four of them had an uninformed discussion about 9/11 truth. I like Trey and Matt though. South Park is probably the most moral show on TV nowadays, which says a lot about our society if you think about it! Bullshit! on the other hand... well I think its name just about sums it up!

www.PharmaWhores.com

The CIA gave the Christmas Underwear Terrorist A Visa for our Country???

I commend Washington's blog on this one.

Here is one quote from Washington's Blog :

"The State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counterterrorism officials had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday. "

Here is another:
"One of al-Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism and how to hijack airplanes, who was a very close associate of Bin Laden, was an American citizen who was an operative for the FBI, the CIA, and the Army (see this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this article from the Globe and Mail). Indeed, while he was acting as an FBI informant, he smuggled Bin Laden in and out of Afghanistan, helped plan the attacks on US embassies in Africa, and apparently played a pivotal role in planning 9/11. "

In a previous post of mine on this blog and on the blog Phoenix Rising, I stated that the CIA and the intellegence community were either imbecilic morons or they allowed this thing with the C.U.B. (Christmas underwear bomber) to happen.
Well it seems that they not only knew, but most likely gave him a visa. Personally I am for the.... they are imbecilic morons who let it (or made it) happen to farther some moronic insane scheme, version of events.
I cannot understand for the life of me why Osama-Bin-Laden would rise from the dead just to take credit for such stupidity can you?

Article Related Links :

Flight 253: Intelligence Agencies Nixed State Department Move to Revoke Bomber’s Visa

Amid media blackout - Congressional hearing reveals US intelligence agencies shielded Flight 253 bomber

CIA Mind Control well funded experiments

Obama invokes 9/11 aaa-gain!

Dorothy and the Wizard of Bunk

By: FaithMichaels and John-Michael P. Talboo

Recently Dorothy Robinson of the Metro newspaper in NYC informed us that "Life is not a ‘24’ episode," she states...

"Pearl Harbor. 9/11. The assassination of John F. Kennedy. Many people don’t believe what’s recounted in the history books. In 'Voodoo Histories,' British author David Aaronovitch takes on those conspiracy theorists."

Well Ms. Robinson, an article entitled "Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories" published on the website GateCreepers.com "redresses a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather the acknowledgment of a common historical and social phenomenon."

Dorthy asks the Wizard: "Why do smart people believe things that are so far-fetched?"

The Wizard replies: "The thing about conspiracy theories is they are more satisfying than real life. They take all of the messiness and accident and coincidence out and replace it with something planned. So even if it’s bad, it’s still more reassuring that someone has planned something rather than it being so messy and awful."

This would be...

DEBUNKED MYTH #1: CONSIRACY THEORIES SHOW A SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF HOW THE WORLD IS RUN

"This claim is made about theories that involve elite organisations and secret societies. Academics claim that such theories are simplistic because they offer certainty and knowledge of hidden affairs, that secret activities are easily understood, only obscured. In other words, the actual claim is that real world is confusing and random. The claim that conspiracy theories are too simple really says that conspiracy theories are too clear and well defined.

However, such dismissals are often used as a pretext to trivialise the roles played by secretive elite groups. Theories that rule out the importance of elite organisations that wield dominant power offer a view of the world that is not only simplistic, but that distorts the reality of power relations and hides the inequities and democratic deficits of the world.

Another purpose behind this claim is to take a political, military or national security disaster and revise it to fit the image of the familiar stressful day to day world, with all it's accompanying incompetencies. Yet, it is precisely this picture that is simplified. There are no conspiracies, only mistakes. There are no unseemly activities except for those named in the statutes of the state. Lying on the witness stand is illegal, yet lying to the people is a misunderstanding.

In either case, there is little grounds for the claim that conspiracy theories simplify the world. Below the surface, they require people to understand complex concepts including propaganda mechanisms, manufacturing of consent, and how elites gain and maintain their positions of power. Such concepts are not readily accessible to the general public because they are usually ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.

On the other hand, theories that rule out the existence of elite organisations are appealing because they give people the illusion that they have power and are living in an open society. Therefore, the absence of the concept of a destructive elite will mean that the people never take action to defend against the activities of that elite."

Dorothy says the Wizard also informed her that...

"Next time a conspiracy theorist tries to sell you on something that isn’t true... repeat the philosophical principle of Occam’s razor. 'It’s as simple as this: If you have two explanations, one simple and one complex, the one that is simple is most always true.' Basically, don’t introduce any unnecessary plots points."

This would be...

DEBUNKED MYTH #3: CONSPIRACY THEORIES VIOLATE OCCAM'S RAZOR

"Many people use the phrase as a slick way of dismissing an argument without confronting its supporting evidence, sometimes assuming that the evidence is speculation without having looked at it at all. Often, those people miss the fact that the official theory is questioned partly because it violates Occam's Razor.

Many conspiracy theorists accept Occam's Razor as a useful technique to refine their theories and eliminate those that rest on too many unproven assertions. However, its premises have been challenged, not least by Occam's contemporaries. Walter of Chatton, for example, formulated his own anti-razor: ('If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on').

Thus, the theory of parsimony only applies insofar as the simplest theory sufficiently explains how the events occur. It must therefore be discarded in favour of a more complex theory if the previous one has holes. The misconception that only simple theories are acceptable flies in the face of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', because it makes it impossible to prove theories that rely on complex evidence.

Furthermore, Occam's razor is a scientific theory, and thus applies to scientific principles. When two scientific theories make the same prediction, and both predictions appear to be correct then the one that is most simple is accepted.

This is inapplicable to social sciences however because of the unpredictable human element involved. Whilst purely physical or chemical reactions can be held to Occam's razor, activities by conscious beings cannot, as conscious beings can deliberately add complexity to events, or they can behave in irrational ways. As an example: the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so it is known that both government and non-government entities are equally capable of evil acts. The way to determine which is more likely to do the evil task is completely based on subjective opinion.

Theories should be eliminated by the success or failure of experiments to test their predictions, rather than by Occam's razor alone. It should also not be interpreted as excluding speculation. In the presence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, such as conflict of interest, historical precedents and previous incidents of cover-ups, it is acceptable to assume that some evidence is still being covered up and will not be shown to the public."

Finally we are told that...

"Sept. 11. [Conspiracist] David Ray Griffin is a top theologian, but he can’t see there isn’t one kernel of evidence to support his theories. He’s arguing for a cast of thousands to be involved who are then sworn to secrecy. And that is more probable than the truth?"

First off, we don't agree with all of Griffin's research. But as the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts, pointed out...

"Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, [official publication date: Mar. 30, 2007] Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes."

As to the Wizard's supposed cast of thousands, Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net has addressed this critique. (AKA as an FAQ)...

Wouldn't the orchestration of the attack by insiders have necessitated the involvement of large numbers of people?

"Not in the execution of the attack. A conspiracy can involve different levels of complicity, with knowledge of the complete plan limited to a few individuals. There are plausible scenarios of the attack as an inside job in which the number of such individuals is smaller than the number of individuals accused by the official conspiracy theory of 'sleeper cells' directed by Osama bin Laden.

High-ranking officials in the government have at their disposal several tools that Osama bin Laden would have lacked, such as detailed knowledge and control of the military's disposition and response to the attack, and access to the military's and intelligence agencies' hierarchical and compartmentalized command structure designed to execute complex operations with individuals working on a need-to-know basis. Compartmentalization is an organizational tool long employed by intelligence agencies. 1

The speculative scenario outlined in Attack Scenario 404 explains how the attack might have been carried out by as few as twelve individuals."

Quite often we who talk about 9/11 truth and government conspiracies are told we are paranoid and need meds. We are told that our government doesn't do things like this and that we are delusional. We see articles that question why Americans like to believe in conspiracy theories.

Those articles usually have the same hoh hum answer.

It usually reads something like this...

We who believe in governmental conspiracies just cannot handle the fact that life has random events that are out of human control and it is easier to think that someone conspired to make it happen.

This is usually an argument that is used when people say that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is used to brush off the legitimate questioning of 9/11. It's a dismissal as if questioning an event that changed every ones lives is only done by those who are crazy or irrational.

This is fear of social ostracizing being used to control the masses and dissuade anyone from really looking deep and examining the facts for themselves. Labeling every person who questions anomalies regarding an event such as 9/11 as a conspiracy theorist immediately reduces the questioners to a crack-pot status. No one wants to be labeled as "crazy" as a rule. This labeling of "conspiracy theorist" keeps the real truth hidden and out of the mainstream thought for a longer period of time.

It is difficult for many to believe that the people they support in our government, those elected to office would be so greedy and or corrupt that they would carry out an act of treason as big as 9/11. It is too large a shock for their minds to accept. When something such as this happens in people's personal lives and people refuse to look at it psychiatrists call this denial. Denial happens when the reality of the truth is so much greater than the illusion of the truth. Their minds cannot accept the facts of the situation, for to do so would mean that they would have to take an action that is uncomfortable for them and their illusion of safety would be shattered. It is a betrayal of the highest order. Much like when a trusted family member betrays another family member. When people look to people to lead and they follow, it is a huge thing for those that trust the leaders to be betrayed in such a fashion as would have had to have happened if 9/11 was an inside job. This is why 9/11 truth gets downgraded to a conspiracy theory. It makes it easier for many to not look at it seriously. Thereby their world view of reality remains safe.

The reason we believe 9/11 was an inside job is because the facts of the case leave no other rational explanation. We may not have all the hows and wherefores figured out yet regarding 9/11, but we are most certainly not living in denial.

Finally, here is a challenge for Dorothy and the Wizard; leave OZ, go back to Kansas, and write a peer-reviewed refutation of the 4 papers and letters challenging the official version of events published in US science journals in 2008 and 2009.

(Note to the Cowardly Lion: It's in the spine!)

Related Info...

David Aaronovitch tells Salon.com "9/11 conspiracy theory" is "the most baroque," slams David Ray Griffin

Dying Media Desperately Attacks 9/11 Truth

More Problems for the CIT-Heads: Paik Testimony

Pat Curley
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com
Thursday, February 04, 2010

Sometimes the Troofers do good debunking, but only on the parts of the fantasy that they don't agree with personally.

"There are problems with some elements of Shinki and Ed Paik’s accounts, but CIT has compounded these by omitting or distorting elements of Ed and Shinki’s accounts, while selectively interpreting and hyping other elements. CIT has a history of doing this, they’ve consistently done it in ways that support their theory about ‘north path’ and ‘Pentagon flyover’, and their doing so- while accusing their critics of being ‘agents’ and ‘disinformation’- has created controversy and undermined their own credibility."

...

I think Pat is just mad that Scootle pointed out that: "ScrewLooseChange hasn't really been debunking much lately. It's essentially now little more than a 9/11 truth gossip blog. And when they do debunk it's usually a repost of something about CIT created by people in the 9/11 truth movement. And on the rare occasion when they do some original debunking, it's usually nitpicking."

Related Info...

Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

A Clarification on Disinfo

National Geographic, Muse, Internet Censorship, Sibel Edmonds, Invisible Empire, 911-DIS.INFO and the Union of Truthers and Debunkers

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

On Jan 1st I reposted a response by World911Truth.org to Michael Shermer's article "9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack." Shermer recently replied to this reply in his article "Rebutting (Again) the 9/11 Truthers" and linked my post in the first paragraph as opposed to the original source. Prior to me finding this out I removed my posting having decided not to link to World911Truth.org due to their promotion of 9/11 related material that I am opposed to. (Including a reference to "the plane that supposedly hit it the Pentagon" in their reply to Shermer, which I was going to let slide until a comment about it prompted me to look at their site further.) I have nothing against this site personally, and am not doubting their sincerity, but more and more, over time, I have been trying to clean this blog up so that we do not in any way promote sites that post what we consider misinformation. All that being said, here is a reply to Shermer's reply to the original reply. Confused? Well one thing that is not confusing is that Michael Shermer has been debunked. - John-Michael P. Talboo
(P.S. A good compromise when posting material of which there is a heated debate, is to mention this fact, and present both sides.)

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

Steve Weathers
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
February 4, 2010

[911 Blogger Comment:] How unbelievably ignorant. I love how he speaks in incredibly general terms throughout the article to conceal evidence, such as how he says "All evidence for thermite is thus far inconclusive" without elaborating on said evidence. He doesn't mention the red/gray chips with explosive tendencies and identical chemical signatures. He just says "it's inconclusive". Regardless, pretty much all of his rebuttals have been refuted at some point or another already. This is just more of the same. - Arcterus

Paragraph 1...

Like unsinkable rubber duckies, everytime you push down the fatuous arguments of the 9/11 “truthers,” who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks on that fateful day in September, they just pop back up. In response to my blog here, 9/11 Truthers Foiled by 12/25 Attack, the “truthers” have fired back with a series of questions for me, not about Al Qaeda and bin Laden taking credit for the Xmas day underwear bomber, or for 7/7, or Lisbon, or the attack on the World Trade Center buildings in the early 1990s, but on specific “anomalies” in the collapse of the WTC buildings, in the mistaken belief that if I cannot address each and every anomaly they believe they have found, then this is proof positive that Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and company are guilty. Here is their challenge to me: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-michael-shermer.html

Mr. Shermer this blog has tackled most of the subjects you mention. By all means try to rebunk this nuanced commentary...

Alleged 9/11 Plotters Offer to Confess at Guantánamo - What Does it Mean to the 9/11 Truth Movement?

BBC Propaganda: Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive?

BBC 7/7 "Documentary": Just a hitpiece, or something more sinister?

The Christmas Underwear Terrorist

Paragraph 2...

The "handful of unexplained anomalies", like bullets dug out of a body at a crime scene, do change the landscape significantly here- as you would expect in any forensic investigation. It's hard science Mr. Shermer shirks. To confabulate this scientific evidence with things such as "creationism and crank theories of physics" is lunacy. Shermer's claim that a "convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry" is necessary to get a good idea of what really happened belies the fact that the official evidence he refers to has been almost entirely debunked. Nevertheless, when multiple lines of forensic evidence all point in one direction- that explosives and thermate incendiary material were used to being down the buildings - then we have to defer to this logic. Shermer needs to understand that "evidence" must be substantiated.

Paragraph 3...

His next attempt is classic 911 debunker obfuscation. Rather than dealing with the fact that Molten Steel was discovered in the rubble pile (and that this was due to thermate incendiary action) we are told that molten steel is not necessary to cause a collapse of the buildings since office fires need only weaken the steel. Apart from the fact that no steel framed high rise structure has ever completely collapsed due to fires, he avoids the point that Molten Steel was present. Hello !!

Paragraph 4...

He resorts to the "buildings were 95 empty space argument..." Well on the atomic level we are also mostly empty space. He avoids basic common sense here.

Paragraph 5...

His idea that the building collapses did not travel straight down through the path of greatest resistance is crazy. The videos all disprove his claims. The tops do tilt slightly but the collapse front below the tilting tops are straight down. Building 7 is a straight down collapse.

Paragraph 6...

"Controlled demolitions are done from the bottom up, not the top down" False. If you search YouTube you will see a number that are done from top and middle down. Controlled demolitions can be arranged in all manner of ways. [This is really like shooting fish in a barrel. Michael Shermer is not a debunker but a clown.]

Paragraph 7...

(Resorting to the lies of a demolition expert): Shermer, your expert witness, from Protec, is discredited by the fact that he lies and misrepresents the evidence.

Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

Protec: No they did not. The key to any demolition investigation is in finding out the “where”—the actual point at which the building failed. All photographic evidence shows World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 failed at the point of impact. Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above.

Counter claim: Not all demolition collapses begin from the bottom floors. The towers demolitions could easily be started at any point in the buildings if they were rigged from top to bottom.

Claim #2: But they fell right down into their own footprint.

Protec: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance and there was a lot of resistance. Buildings of 20 stories or more do not topple over like trees or reinforced towers or smokestacks. Imploding demolitions fall into a footprint because lower stories are removed first. WTC debris was forced out away from the building as the falling mass encountered intact floors.

Counter claim: This is obfuscation. Yes, WTC7 fell into its own footprint. The Twin Towers were blasted having lateral ejections of heavy debris- impossible without explosives.

Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.

Protec: No, air and debris can be seen being violently ejected from the building—a natural and predictable effect of rapid structure collapse.

Counter claim: This point is contentious but rather than due to compressed air or debris shooting out it is likely due to explosive forces. Many of these points of ejection are well below the collapse front.

Claim #4: Witnesses heard explosions.

Protec: All Seismic evidence from many independent sources on 9/11 showed none of the sudden vibration spikes that result from explosive detonations.

Counter claim: Lack of seismic evidence does not negate the fact that explosves were heard. Many people heard explosions. In WTC7 Barry Jennings and Michael Hess were almost killed by an explosion. In other known controlled demolitions the signatures from the explosions do not always register on the seismographs. If the bombs are not directly connected to the ground, but rather to the steel structures, then we see the cutting of the columns rather than their shaking you would need to get a decent signal into the ground.

Claim #5: A heat generating explosive (thermite?) melted steel at ground Zero.

Protec: To a man, demolition workers do not report encountering molten steel, cut beams or any evidence of explosions. Claims of detected traces of thermite are at this time inconclusive.

Counter claim: Maybe the Protec people were away on the days that Molten Steel was pulled from the rubble ? Maybe this spokesperson missed the FEMA analysis of heat corroded steel and the observations of structural engineers who examined the metal.

And no, Protec is wrong. The traces of Thermite, found in the rubble, are conclusive.

Claim #6: Ground Zero debris—particularly the large steel columns from towers 1 and 2—were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny.

Protec: Not according to those who handled the steel. The chain of procession is clearly documented, first at ground Zero by Protec and later at the Fresh Kills site by Yannuzzi Demolition. The time frame (months) before it was shipped to China was normal.

Counter claim - See: WTC Steel Removal - The Expeditious Destruction of the Evidence at Ground Zero

Claim #7: WTC7 was intentionally “pulled down” with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to “pull it.”

Protec: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. We have never heard “pull it” used to refer to an explosive demolition. Demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC7, and also witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

Counter claim - See: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the "Pull it" comment

Also, the level of noise is not necessarily a factor here in the explosive demoltion of the WTC7 building since we are dealing with known thermate incendiaries and nano-thermite explosive materials that do not make a lot of noise. Nevertheless, explosive noises were heard in relation to WTC7 - there were even reports of explosions from inside the building !!

Plus which explosive demolitions experts at the time anticipated the collapse of the building ? Word on the street was that the building was gonna be coming down. The film of its collapse, showing a freefall period, indicates that this HAD to have been done via explosives.

Claim #8: Steel-frame buildings do not collapse due to fire.

Protec: Many steel-framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

Counter claim: Nope, Steel framed high rise buildings do not completely collapse due to fires. There are no examples. We have some partial collapses but nothing like the complete symmetrical demolitions we witnessed on 911.

Claim #9: Anyone who denies that explosives were used is ignoring evidence.

Protec: Most of our comments apply to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they should have seen had explosives been present. The hundreds of men and women who worked to remove debris from ground zero were some of the countries most experienced and respected demolition veterans. They of all people processed the experience and expertise to recognize evidence of controlled demolition if it existed. None of these people has come forward with suspicions that explosives were used.

Counter claim: Protec and others working on the clean up need to be interviewed and investigated. We have many witnesses on record indicating there was molten steel. We have scientific analysis and pictures of molten steel. Despite the evidence here we have spokespeople, defending the Government account, saying that this is not true.

The differences we see between the Protec expectations and reality can be accounted for via their own denial of evidence and the fact that non-standard techniques were used to bring down these buildings.

Summary:

To believe anything Shermer presents, one must abandon all logic, the Laws of physics, and the evidence of your own eyes. We are witness here to a poor attempt at disinformation.

No one will believe such obvious lies.

Mr. Shermer, you cannot fool all the people all of the time. Facts have a nasty way of sorting things out. You should know better.

Debunkers = Debunked (again) !!

Spookypunkos