The WTC Dust: Science and Replication

 Bilbo's Blog

A few years ago a team of scientists studied the red/gray chips in dust samples of the World Trade Center buildings and came to the conclusion that they were the remains of an active thermitic material, which could have been used as explosives. Since then their claim has been disputed. But no one has tried to replicate their results. Science isn't just about trying to get peer-reviewed papers published. That's only part of the story. Once results have been published, it is then the job of other scientists to try to replicate the results, by doing the same experiments, though perhaps under more controlled conditions. NIST, for example, has dust samples of their own. They could conduct the same experiments and see what they get.

Meanwhile, Mark Basile, a chemical engineer and signer of the petition that requests a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11, along with over 1,750 architects and engineers, is trying to raise funds to conduct a blind study of the dust samples. The fundraising is going slow. It hasn't been advertised in the two major 9/11 truther websites, which makes one wonder why. Is it distrust of Basile? Of the lab that he would eventually select? A fear that authorities would discover which lab it was and infiltrate, bribe, or threaten it to get negative results? That would be my fear. But whatever the reason, so far no one is trying to replicate the results of the original study. And so science (at least regarding the dust samples) remains at a stand still.

Speaking Truth to Power

I’ve recently been involved in a series of debates with science blogger Myles Power over the events of 9/11. Though I’m currently working on Part 2 of my response to his YouTube video series, I need to address one issue that’s recently come to my attention. It seems that Mr. Power has decided to comment on our debate on his website, and he has some interesting things to say. For starters, he refers to me as an “Apex Truther,” which I assume means that he considers me to be a “top” truther of some kind. For the record, if he wanted to speak with a real “Apex” truther, he could simply try and contact any of the scientists in the Movement if he has any concerns. But titles aside, let’s look at the concerns Mr. Power has apparently directed towards me.

Mr. Power discusses my initial response to his video series, noting that it comprises 4349 words. But after reading and listening to Mr. Power’s criticisms of my response, I find it hard to believe that he has taken the time to bother reading the majority of those 4349 words. He repeats his claim that my response “really [does] not say much about anything.” And why does he think this? Because the references I provided in my response “are not peer-reviewed research, but references to other 9/11 conspiracy blog posts.” But I find this argument to be pure hand waving. Even if my sources are not “peer-reviewed” (some of them are, btw), how exactly does that immediately invalidate them? Just because something is not peer-reviewed does not automatically mean it’s wrong. And likewise, just because something is peer-reviewed does not necessarily mean that it’s right. In order to know whether or not my sources back up my claims, one would actually need to read them first. But evidence suggests Mr. Power did not even bother to do that.

For example, he cites one of my references which links to my AE911Truth article What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers? What’s his problem this reference?

Some [references] don’t even link to the [sic] what he is talking about. The perfect example is where Adam says “And research shows that it has even been used in the demolition of large steel structures.[36]” But the reference is to another one of his blog post [sic] named “What Is Nanothermite? Could It Have Been Used To Demolish The WTC Skyscrapers?”. Saying something is capable of doing something is not the same as saying that it has Adam.

However, when one reads to the very end of my article, you will see that I wrote the following:

[W]e find that thermite has in fact been used to demolish steel structures in the past. For example, Popular Mechanics itself documents that thermite was used in the demolition of structures such as the Skyride Tower in Chicago and the dome of the German Reichstag. Furthermore, experiments conducted by civil engineer Jonathan Cole have shown that ordinary thermate can be used to effectively cut through steel columns. And as described earlier, the effectiveness of nanothermite is much higher than that of ordinary thermate.

The hyperlinks included above appear in the original quote. I simply provided this article as a reference so that it could be demonstrated that thermite does have the capability to demolish steel structures, and that it has been used to do so in the past. One of the reasons I write these articles is so that I don’t have to keep repeating myself to those who have questions regarding the events of 9/11. I can simply link them to my writings so that their questions get answered. But occasionally I do have to deal with people like Mr. Power, who is evidently fine with just ignoring and dismissing my sources.

But Mr. Power’s biggest problem regards my arguments about the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower. I have already gone into great detail on this issue in my initial video response, but let’s look at what Mr. Power has to say on the matter.

One of the more interesting claims made was that the molten material seen flowing from the world trade centre could not have been aluminium because it was glowing white hot. The blog even had an image showing that it was white. This would be impressive if it did not have, directly above it a [sic] image of it glowing orange. The claim was so bizarre that I mentioned it in my final thoughts in my final video. Soon after this Adam made a video response saying that I was incorrect in stating that the molten material was orange in the image. He even included an image of myself with the word “WRONG” in big red letters pasted over the top of it, as if to show just how wrong I was… The rest of the video is one big contradiction and consists of clips of people saying that aluminium both can and can’t glow red/orange.

Now here I will actually accept some fault on my part. In my original response, I quoted from one of my other writings on AE911Truth that discusses the molten metal issue. The original article did not include the images Mr. Power refers to. I wanted to show that the color of the material did indeed indicate that it had reached white-hot temperatures, so I included the color graph but not the image I was comparing it with. However, I should have included the image I originally used as a comparison for the color chart. So, mea culpa. Here is the image of the molten metal that I used as a comparison.

However, my response video also demonstrated that the image I did end up using did NOT show the metal glowing orange. The material is at the very least glowing yellow.

Mr. Power then treats us to a lengthy discussion regarding aluminum and how it glows when heated.

So what is the deal with aluminium? Can it glow orange and was it the material seen flowing from one of the towers? Aluminium can glow but unlike steel it melts before it begins to glow. The majority of people working with molten aluminium don’t waste energy by heating it to the point of it glowing. This has led to many uninformed truthers believing that it can’t. Truthers also claim that aluminium goes back to being silvery instantly when removed from a heat source or whilst being poured. Every metallurgist, chemist, engineer etc. knows aluminium does not have the magical property of turning silver the instant it is removed from a heat source.

Note Mr. Power’s use of hyperbole here. According to him, EVERY metallurgist, chemist, and engineer knows that aluminum does not immediately go from glowing to silver when removed from its heat source. Yet he doesn’t name a single scientist who holds that position. Odd how Mr. Power criticizes my use of references, and then proceeds to provide no references himself when making a specific claim. The fact of the matter is that I cited three individuals in my response video to comment on the molten aluminum vs. molten iron/steel debate; a foundry worker, a chemical engineer, and a physicist. And contrary to what Mr. Power asserts, these individuals do not contradict themselves when discussing this issue. Jerry Lobdill, the chemical engineer I showed in my video, has this to say in one of his papers on the topic:

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82^nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82^nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.  And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

And Steven Jones, the physicist I showed, has written that:

[F]alling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce (glow) like other metals, but faintly, so… falling liquid aluminum [in bright daylight] will appear silvery-gray.

There is no contradiction, except in the imaginations of people like Mr. Power. What these people are saying is that aluminum leaving its heat source will not continue to glow, since the heat is no longer being applied to it. And in the case of the material flowing out of the South Tower, it remained glowing even after falling virtually all the way down to the ground. But Mr. Power has an explanation for why the material glowed so long.

But truthers have many videos of them heating aluminium to the point of it glowing and showing it turn back to silver when they pour it, I hear you say. That’s true but they are missing one large factor, the volume. If you pour a small amount of aluminium, say 10g then it will cool down to the point it no longer glows within a relatively short distance. If you were to repeat the experiment with 100kg then it would take a considerably larger poring [sic] distance to cool down. The amount of material seen flowing from the world trade centre was a considerable volume and therefore it is not unexpected (if it was aluminium) for it to remain glowing.

First note that he contradicts himself here, when saying that aluminum evidently can turn silver instantly after leaving its container. What happened to “every metallurgist, chemist, engineer etc.” saying just the opposite? But his explanation for the glowing material is also problematic. Once again, he provides no reference to back up his claim that the amount of metal makes any difference. Even if he were correct, his whole point is moot anyway. The molten metal flowing out of the building broke off into smaller droplets as it fell to the ground (which btw is exactly what thermite reactions often look like), and yet the material still glowed.

                

Then we are told by Mr. Power that we probably will never know for sure what the material was.

[W]as the molten material seen flowing from the world trade centre aluminium? The truth is we don’t know. The world is chaotic and sometimes no matter how hard people research something, sometimes some questions will always remain unanswered. The best explanation we have is that this molten material is aluminium from the airplane melted by the office fires, mixed with organic material, but we don’t 100% know. This is why I was very careful in the wording I used in my video “It is more than likely that the molten material seen flowing from the tower is aluminium”. I am very aware that I may be wrong but this does not mean that Adams [sic] nonsensical theories about thermite are correct. Any who this article is not really about what happened on September 11th, its [sic] about the apex truther and his willingness to ignore reality to stay secure and safe in his 9/11 conspiracy bubble.

It’s certainly shocking to read these words written by someone who considers himself to be a scientist. He’s apparently forgotten one of the prime factors of science that ensures that it works: experimentation. Repeatable, verifiable experimentation. Debunkers like him are making a specific argument; that aluminum heated up to a certain temperature will behave in a certain way. This is a physical process, and can therefore be repeated in the physical world. It may be that the material was not aluminum, but Mr. Power cannot know this if he never even checks. To somewhat quote Mr. Power, simply saying that something can do something is not the same as proving that it can. One would need to try and recreate what happened to know that for sure. Otherwise we only have Mr. Power’s word to fall back on, which is far from actually conducting a scientific experiment. However, others have done these kinds of experiments repeatedly, and those experiments contradict the idea that the material was aluminum. Questions go unanswered when people simply fail to address them, not because they can’t be proven/disproven. Mr. Power can assert that I am ignoring reality all he wants, but the facts demonstrate that it is he who is ignoring reality by ignoring the experiments members of the Movement have carried out.

But it doesn’t end there. Mr. Power also takes issue with my repeated attempts to show why he is wrong on this issue.

After I posted his video on my Facebook wall Adam began commenting. In the comments section he was repeatedly confronted with testimony from people who work with molten aluminium, as well as video evidence posted from a guy named John. This video evidence proved without a shadow of doubt that aluminium can glow red/orange, that it continues to glow whilst being poured and whilst left standing for a certain period of time. Adams [sic] response when confronted with this overwhelming evidence was unbelievable and every one [sic] who was in the chat was flabbergasted by his response. I found myself with my mouth wide open and hands in the air screaming “WHAT!” in a mixture of confusion and anger.

“John, the videos you provide show aluminum glowing, but keep in mind that aluminum is highly reflective. The glow from the heat source is what is likely shown in the video. Especially the second, given that the aluminum is being poured in the evening. But once aluminum leaves its heat source and does not have any additional heat applied to it, it will turn silver almost instantly.” – Adam Taylor

I want you to take that in for a second. Adam is claiming that the light emitted by the molten aluminium in the videos is due to it being highly reflective and reflecting the glow from the heat source. For this to work molten aluminium must also have the ability to bend space and time to reflect light from a heat source which is not in direct line of sight into the camera, uniformly giving the impression that it is glowing. This was not a one off comment, as Adam was quizzed by others about his ludicrous claims and he repetitively said that the glow was due to it reflecting the heat source.

Once again, Mr. Power has misrepresented what I was trying to convey. I asserted that the glow given off in the videos provided showed that the light given off by the heat source was reflected in the aluminum, and that is what caused it to glow. And Mr. Power omits the fact that I had support on this assertion. My fellow blog contributor ScootleRoyale (Scott Burnan) eventually stepped in and explained exactly what I did, albeit in somewhat more technical terms.

Indeed, aluminum has low emissivity and very high reflectance, which is one of the reasons it’s used on mirrors. And ironically, the two pictures Mr. Power provides in his post do in fact show the heat source directly near the “glowing” aluminum, not bending space and time as he asserts. 

Scootle also pointed out to Mr. Power that even NIST doesn’t use his explanation for the molten material, instead asserting that it was molten aluminum mixed with organics. But as Scootle also showed, this explanation has also been debunked by people in the Truth Movement. So what the heck happened to Scootle’s arguments? Mr. Power acts as though it was only me making such arguments, which is clearly wrong. It’s telling that he provides no link to his thread on Facebook where this whole discussion took place. If you’re on Facebook, you can read the discussion for yourself here.

(For more on why the material could not have been molten aluminum, the following links are recommended:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t4749.html 
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/debunking-molten-aluminium-flow-from.html)

Finally, Mr. Power decides to examine my credentials in relation to this discussion.

Now Adam admits that he has no scientific background but says he makes sure to carefully research any subject he is interested in. But you don’t have to have a science background to know this is wrong you just have to live in the real world. A lot of you may think that I am being unfairly harsh to Adam but remember he is not some anonymous troll on the internet. He writes for the debunking the debunkers blog and architects & engineers for 9/11 truth website, even though he is studying Liberal Arts and Political Science and not architecture or engineering. His delusions and arrogance are a product of 11 years of truther evolution. Evolution which has seen weaker truthers leaving the movement after been [sic] convinced by logic and evidence leaving apex truthers like Adam.

This whole dispute over my qualifications and background is rather pointless. Regardless of what I have academically studied (for the record, I actually did take architecture classes in high school. I’m currently studying business and economics at my university), I have made sure to read through the relevant literature and have kept up to date with the science as much as I can. That is the whole point of writing at the Debunking the Debunkers blog. We examine every argument from all sides. It’s true that I am obviously an amateur in the technical sense, but the lack of letters behind a person’s name does nothing to diminish the validity of their work. My work is something that should be read and interacted with before dismissing, and if Mr. Power thinks any differently, then it says more about him than it does me. Contrary to what Mr. Power wants to believe about me, my current beliefs about 9/11 are the result of over five years of careful research and study, and also my determination to find out why almost 3000 people were murdered.

Now, from here on out I am speaking directly to you Mr. Power. Your current responses to me have done more to reflect the type of person you are rather than to refute anything I’ve written about so far. This most recent response of yours is quite telling, as I would not have even known about it had I not just happened to visit your website. In any sort of scientific debate, you might want to actually try and inform your opponent when you’ve posted some kind of response. With all of my rebuttals to your work, I’ve made sure to send them to you as soon as they were finished. But as of writing this, it's been a few days since you’ve posted your response, and it’s obvious you had no intention of informing me about it.

I believe that you are very misinformed about the events of 9/11, and I will admit that some of that is likely due to the truthers you’ve interacted with. As Scootle (Scott) pointed out to you on Facebook, many truthers out there have not studied the events as carefully as we have. That being said, you have still misrepresented the arguments presented by accomplished scientists in the Movement, something that is not as excusable. These scientists have done extraordinary work, and your arrogant dismissal of them due to their involvement in the Truth Movement is simply nonsensical. Obviously arguments over the internet don’t always accomplish much, but I do have an alternate idea. It was recently suggested to me by a commenter on my blog that you and I should have a real one on one debate regarding 9/11. And I think this is a great idea. So if you are ever interested, I would be more than happy to have a lively debate with you on the events of 9/11. How this would be set up I’m not sure. I have connections with radio programs we could possibly appear on. Or, if you have any ideas please feel free to let me know. In fact, you yourself can be in charge of the whole thing if you wish. You can choose the time, method, and format. You can even pick a moderator if you so choose. In any event, I’m sure you are very busy producing your science videos, so I wouldn’t expect this to be an instant thing. But if you are ever interested, please let me know and I’m sure we can work something out.

9/11 is one of the most important events that has ever happened in world history, and I hope you will understand that I treat it as such. This issue is very important to me, and I hope you are able to look past your pre-conceived notions regarding “conspiracy theorists” and realize that all I am seeking is the truth. Part of this process has involved me being skeptical of all sides of the arguments, even the arguments from people in the Truth Movement. But I question if you have taken the time to evaluate the claims made by those in authority, such as NIST, as much as you have evaluated the claims of the Movement. To not do so represents the very ugly side of skepticism, and I hope you have not fallen prey to that. I hope that you will take my comments into consideration, and realize that I care about science and the truth as much as you do.

Sincerely,

-Adam Taylor

Quotes Rant

Ok, this is getting ridiculous! Why the hell would Albert Einstein ever say that?! He was a physicist, not a botanist! I found this image on the front page of David Icke's site and it's obvious from the file name that it came Facebook - probably some "truth" page. I called BS immediately, so I Googled the quote and found a Snopes article from 2007 debunking it.

The annoying thing is that I find this to be the case literally ALL the time. Everytime I come across an interesting quote attributed to Einstein or Ghandi or Martin Luther King or Hitler or one of America's Founding Fathers or some other famous historical figure or top globalist on a conspiracy site, I check it and I almost always find that it was mis-attributed or flat out made up.

There's no record of Ghandi ever saying "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win".

There's no record of Hitler ever saying "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our Homeland" (As claimed by the movie Zeitgeist, for example), nor any of the Anti-Christian quotes attributed to him.

There's no record of Einstein ever having said "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" or hundreds of other quotes attributed to him. Same with many Martin Luther King quotes - this one, for example.

Many of the pro-gun quotes attributed to people like Thomas Jefferson that have been circulating the past few weeks seem to have been made up.

The word "fluoride" does not appear anywhere in The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, so that often cited quote about fluoride in Nazi death camps is BS.

And Albert Pike's famous "Three World Wars" letter is a complete hoax!

I could go on and on and on. There are so many examples, I can only think of a few off the top of my head. Pretty much any quote you find on sites like QuotationsPage or BrainyQuote is probably fake. Not all of them though. Jesse Ventura opened his "63 Documents" book, with the following quote from Einstein: "A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth". Clearly Ventura got this quote from somewhere on the internet, but amazingly, it is actually genuine - sort of. In a letter to a friend of his in 1901, Einstein wrote "Autoritätsdusel ist der größte Feind der Wahrheit", which does roughly translate to what is commonly circulated ("Autoritätsdusel" literally translates to "authority daze" - not quite as poetic as "a foolish faith in authority", but the message is essentially the same).

As the Snopes article says, made up quotes are often attributed to famous historical figures for political purposes. And we're supposed to be the "truth movement". SO SOURCE YOUR DAMN QUOTES, PEOPLE! Even if a quote has a source, it's probably best to check it. That fluoride in Nazi concentration camps quote has a source after all, but the source is wrong.

Good places to check quotes: Wikiquote, Google Books, Google Scholar. If you find the quote in a book, check it's citation. If it references another book, check that book, see where they got it from. As someone who is genuinely interested in the truth, and who tries to be as academic as possible about it, few things infuriate me more than seeing these unsourced and probably fake quotes get circulated.

Rant over.

"Only three things are infinite: the universe, human stupidity and the number of fake quotes attributed to me on the internet." ~ Albert Einstein

NIST FAIL! The science of denial...

Rebuttal to Myles Power - Molten Aluminum?

Related Info:

Original video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOSMpf6br1k

My detailed response: http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html (Also posted at the Debunking the Debunkers blog: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html)

High quality images: http://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/moltenmetalwtc2-2.jpg and http://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/moltenmetalwtc2-1.jpg

My article discussing molten aluminum: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html

Jerry Lobdill’s article on molten aluminum: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf

Emissivity and reflectance of aluminum: http://tinyurl.com/bx3o3nj

Thermite and Molten Aluminum: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t4749.html 

Debunking Molten Aluminum Flow from South Tower: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/02/debunking-molten-aluminium-flow-from.html

And btw, it’s not molten lead either.

When Your Right You Don't Have to Worry About Who Else Agrees With You ... Even When it's No One

Spartans of Truth ....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/183728944973010/

When I was in the second grade my teacher asked the entire class to raise their hands if they thought … "John ran." … was a sentence ... I proudly raised my hand because she had literally just got done telling us that it was ... After hearing her slowly walking around the classroom she came back to the front row and stood right in front of my desk and said … "Are you sure about that?" … I WAS … Very sure ... Until she motioned for me to take a good look around the classroom which until that moment I hadn't bothered to do ... I was shocked to see that not one other kid had raised their hand ... Not even my friends ... The teacher then said … "Johnathan ... I'll give you to the count of ten to change your mind!" and started counting very slowly … After an excruciating minute of giving the rest of the class including some of my best friends a few desperate "Someone else please, please, please agree with me!!" looks I reluctantly gave up at the count of eight and lowered my hand ... "That's too bad!!" … she said with a frustrated smirk on her face … "Because it IS a sentence!!" After seeing the angry and embarrassed look on my face she bent down and whispered something into my ear I have never been able to forget … "When your right you don't have to worry about who else agrees with you ... Even when it's no one" ….

The thing every serious 9/11 truther has to ask themselves at one point or another is ... If I've done my own research on the subject? ... Watched all the videos and listened to all the tapes? ... Spent the next several years after that backing your up research with serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides of the 9/11 "debate" and you are still FORCED to come to the logical conclusion that the official explanation is complete farcical nonsense? ... Then what does it matter what some brown-nosing ball sucker has to say about it?!! ….

Debunker: "So you base your entire kooky 'WTC Demolition conspiracy theory' on What amounts to ... A feeling!?" ... "A belief!!" ... "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!!" ... "LMFAO LOLOLOLOL ... Dumbshit!!!" ....

My simple reply: "If you consider almost nine years of thorough research on the subject including but not limited to reading every article, reading every journal entry, reading all the reports, watching every video, listening to every "debate", every interview, every audio tape … All followed up by several years of serious thought and reflection of ALL the facts given from BOTH sides … Backed up by fifteen years of my own personal hands on building experience including steel frame and welding work a … 'feeling'?? … But I didn’t ask you …."

FORMING MY COMMENTS WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS IS IMPORTANT ... Forming my comments without any questions left for my adversary to answer is a major component to a large portion of my "wins" ... Truthers run around today saying "I just have questions!" like that phrase will get them out of anything ... I say why is that? ... Cant look it up or what? ... Its like saying "Does gravity exist, I just have questions?" ... Well go outside and throw a rock and let me know how that goes ... If YOU in your capacity as a truther can't look something up about 911 enough to know for certain a debunker sure as hell isn't going to do it for you so why even ask? ... All you'll accomplish in the end by asking a "debunker" to clarify or elaborate on one of your many "questions" is losing the upper hand ... Even if you happen to have valid questions ... After all you will be up against the best and brightest propagandists money can buy in most of these situations your bound to get yourself into ... Never NEVER under-estimate your opponent no matter how solid you think your information is ... State an obvious fact even if it's a single seemingly non-important detail as long as its counter to a "debunker's" obvious lie ... Be sure that your fact is one that you personally know for certain is true and one that you can source all day till the cows come home if asked .. Then stick to it like glue ... If said "debunker" insults your intelligence ... well you didn't ask him did you? ...

When you finally have a "debunker" cornered and he has realized that you've given him enough rope to hang with he will often try to change the subject with what I call the "conspiracy grab bag" perhaps hoping he'll get a rise out of you or better yet get you off onto a completely different subject ....

Debunker:"I suppose you believe in aliens from outer space? ... Or that Israel is behind 911 you fucking anti-Semite?!! ... Are you a tin-foil hat wearing, Alex 'new world order' Jones watching, JFK'er too? ... Get a life you fucking moron!!"

DON'T LET THEM THROW YOU OFF YOUR MARK NO MATTER WHAT!!! ... They will try like hell ... Keep coming back to your one original small detail whatever it may be and ignore everything else or you will lose!! ... Always keep in mind that you don't have to be an expert in every little detail of 911, or the history of the world either for that matter, to beat these guys ... Don't let a"debunker" shop around till he finally gets you on a point you happen to know nothing about but perhaps feel obligated to defend for one reason or another ... He will clobber you with your own ignorance and thus render your one original factual detail long forgotten and therefore moot ... This situation is a real shame considering that you could have won this debate forty or fifty insulting comments ago had YOU simply stayed on track ... Always remember that "debunkers" react to YOU and what you say or don't say ... It's not the other way around ... Make him acknowledge the fact that he was wrong about your one particular detail before moving on to ANYTHING ELSE ... If after a plethora of high quality reference materials are given your "debunker" still won't acknowledge your one obvious fact as a fact then you've already won and there's really no sense in continuing on with your debate ... This type of "debunker" is most likely not there to debate anyway ... In most of these cases where you have a militantly ignorant "debunker" on your hands it's not because you're "not getting through to him" or that your information is "inadequate" in some way but rather because he's there making money off of each comment he makes ... Like any other paid propagandist would ... At this point it's best to quit while your ahead and he's behind ... And by quit I mean shut your hole ... He'll probably just insult you one more time and leave anyway no matter what you say ... Usually using some form of this excuse ....

Debunker: "I'm not like you ... I actually have a life you know ... I don't have time to play 'who gets the last word' with losers who live in their mother's basement and get up at noon ... I have to get up early tomorrow and be a productive member of society ... Later!!" ....

KNOWING WHAT KIND OF "SKEPTIC" YOUR UP AGAINST IS ALSO IMPORTANT!! ... Perhaps most important ... I have noticed in my many years of debating full-fledged "pentagon bloggers" that there appears to be two main types of skeptics ... One in an admirable role and one quite the opposite ... Therefore we have skeptics ... People who honestly disagree for one reason or another and who are therefore worth your time and effort ... And pseudo skeptics ... People who usually end up being nothing more than paid war supporting propagandists sent to intentionally disrupt, intimidate, and confuse you along with anyone else who happens to read your thread and who are therefore NOT worth your time and effort ... Knowing what kind of skeptic your up against right out of the gate will give you an important advantage so learn to spot the differences well ....

(quote from an unknown author)

Characteristics of a pseudo skeptic:

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, threats of physical/emotional harm, or ad hominid attacks in lieu of arguments ...

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as "fakes", "fags", "fuckers", "losers", "hippies", "unpatriotic", "terrorist sympathizers" or 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science ...

7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof ...

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof ...

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims ...

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence ...

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it ...

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims ...

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance) ...

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority' ...

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths ...

16. Provides no references to reputable journal material and at the same time refuses to acknowledge that your reputable journal material exists "at all" even when it's provided to them ...

17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative ...

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics:

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudo skeptic ...

B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things ...

C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides ...

D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions ...

E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own ...

F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim ...

G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides ...

H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence ...

I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason ...

J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence ...

(End of quote)

Once you've stuck to your guns on your one simple and undeniable fact and you've identified the type of skeptic your up against be sure that you don't let your debate degrade into an argument over beliefs and opinions ... Make it clear at all times that you are NOT stating a "belief" ... THIS IS A FACT!!! ... As plain as the FACT that your "debunker" has a nose on his face ... You can see it but he can't ... Is it then a "belief" of yours when your say "Hey ... buddy ... there's a nose on your face!!" and he doesn't buy it and refuses to look in the mirror? ... NO!! ... It's still a fact whether your new "debunker" friend decides to acquiesce the point or not ....

DON'T JUST GIVE A LINK AND CALL IT GOOD ... Take the time to understand WHY it's true ... Once you've done that put the link aside and take some specific excerpts and post that instead ... You will then have your "debunker" in a position of having to be specific in his dismissals of your information ... You therefore take the "blanket dismissal" out of his arsenal which is one of his most effective tools ...

Debunker: "You twoofers don't have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you're saying!! ... Not ONE!! ... If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday ... Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!"

Average Truther: "well here's ONE shred of evidence ... (gives link to peer-reviewed paper)"

Debunker: "What did you get that off the internet? ... LOLOLOL ... You're a loser!! ... You believe everything you see on the Internet don't you? ... Seen Bigfoot lately?? ... LMAO ... MASSIVE FAIL!!"

Average Truther: "This paper came from a scientist who did years of study on the subject ... And it's peer-reviewed"

Debunker: "That "scientist" so-called was an alcoholic who got fired because he has obviously lost his marbles and this is NOT a peer-reviewed paper ... Anyone can post a paper there who is willing to pay the fee ... LMFAO!!!"

In one fell swoop your debunker, even though he was lying, now has you off-balance and therefore on the defensive ... He hasn't at this point even had to read let alone address what's IN said peer-reviewed paper ... Any action you take from this point on will make your comments on this thread look like a pathetic attempt to defend something that really needed no defense in the first place ... Here's how this exchange should have gone ....

Debunker: "You twoofers don't have ONE shred of evidence to back up what you're saying!! ... Not ONE ... If you did it would be all over the news like yesterday ... Admit it your just a crackpot with nothing but bare assertions and opinions!!"

Truther: "Well ... (gives specific, undeniable, short, and easy to understand excerpt from a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal entry that this truther already knows backwards and forwards) ...."

Debunker: "You just make that shit up or what? ... You're a fucking Idiot!!"

Truther: "Only a moron would think that I made that up and your obviously not a moron ... I got this information from an incredibly reliable source ... And here's something else I found interesting (Pastes another shockingly accurate and truthful fact from the same source that ties into nicely with the first pasted excerpt) ... THESE are NOT my opinions no matter how much you would like to think so ... THESE are FACTS!!"

Debunker: "Your obviously a fucking liar!! ... Does Bin Ladin pay you to be a terrorist sympathizer or do you bend over for him for free?!!"

Truther: "What specifically about this is a lie? ... (pastes another undeniably truthful excerpt) ... And as I said be SPECIFIC this time!"

Debunker: "KOOK!!"

Truther: "That's what I thought ... Nothing I've said here is even remotely close to being 'kooky' ... (pastes another excerpt)"

Debunker: "Do you sleep with your mother too? ... Cause I did!!"

Truther: "You having sex with my dead mother has absolutely nothing to do with this! ... (pastes another excerpt)"

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Truther: (pastes another excerpt)

Now wasn't that a hell of a lot more fun?? ... At this stage just keep pasting excerpts until your "debunker" gives up and starts making some sense or leaves ... No matter what he says just ignore him ... If you get to the end of that source and your "debunker" is still being a nuisance move on to the next source ... There are plenty ... I know this technique is effective because I used it against the infamous "troyfromwestvriginia" on YouTube and mopped up the floor with him ... I was on his page and at an incredible disadvantage so if it worked against him it can work against your "debunker" ....

"SO, WHO DID IT THEN!?" ... Don't ever answer this question!!! ... First of all YOU don't have to ... Leave that question for your "debunker" friend to answer ... Remember that you are NOT an expert on investigating mass murders so do pretend to be ... In fact pretend to know nothing ...Your still on the fence ...

Truther: "Hell I'm on the fence about all this ... By all means persuade me ... Please ... Do me the favor of NOT being a truther anymore ...."

If you had the money, connections, authority, unlimited manpower, and unlimited resources you would have gotten the answer to that years ago ... That doesn't take pointing out provable factual errors out of your arsenal so don't let them act like they can get away with this type of maneuver on you for even a second ... If your on trial for murder and you've scientifically proven beyond all reasonable doubt you didn't do it the prosecutor doesn't get to turn around and say ..."Well until you drag the real culprits here into court and make them confess in front of us we're still going to find you guilty anyway!" ... At least not unless your a terrorist suspect inside a the living hell of a military commission ... That's why military commissions are such an abomination to the human race as a whole ... So trust me ... Don't give your opinion about anything especially about those responsible in a debate with a "debunker" ... If you go down this road prepare yourself to fall off a cliff you could have avoided ...Add to that the fact that it's a step that is completely unnecessary and one you can win without taking ....

YOUR ON THEIR SIDE ABOUT ALL THIS ... Your just more than happy to point out a fact or two here and there to let them know your listening to what they are saying and your actually going to have the gall to check ... Point out the things you find wrong with what they are telling you ... Don't settle for a battle of the links with an insult chaser ... Make them be specific ... Make THEM tell you SPECIFICALLY WHAT is nutty or wrong with whatever it is your showing them and call them on it ... THEY won't do it in most cases unless they genuinely want to learn something which will be an important indicator for you in determining what kind of skeptic your up against ... If you are indeed up against a true skeptic be willing to admit when you're wrong and do it right away ... The sooner the better ....

LESS IS MORE ... You have TWO ears and in this day and age TWO eyes vs ONE mouth when communicating ... So an 80% listening and reading to 20% (or less) mouth ratio is ideal when dealing with "Debunkers" or anyone else for that matter ... Any time you can use their exact words against them you are obligated to do so ... In most cases their hypocrisy is so blatant that you will literally be able to cut and paste it ....

THE REDIRECT ... Debunkers when cornered like to say something completely dismissive of your well founded and factual argument by saying something completely untrue immediately followed by a question of their own to throw you and everyone who may be paying attention off topic ... For example ...

Debunker: Free fall is completely impossible and did NOT happen in the case of the wtc collapse ... What actually occurred was a gravitational collapse that was two thirds of free fall ... For free fall to happen there would have to be no resistance at all and that's simply impossible as there was indeed structural support from the lower floors(duh) ....

Truther: Well if you take into account a full second of motionlessness in the beginning and a full second after it's out of sight the collapse in it's entirety was indeed two thirds of free fall ... However this is misleading ... There was in fact a full two and a half seconds of full free fall acceleration involved here that does not get counted if you do your math in this way ... So for at least two and a half seconds there was free fall acceleration involved here ... That's about eight floors gone as fast as a rock falling through the air ....

Debunker: Your math there is just plain wrong, the question I have for you is who did it then if it wasn't the terrorist hijackers who flew the planes into those buildings ... How could "they" have possibly gotten thousands of tons of explosives past tens of thousands of people and a team of bomb sniffing dogs in broad daylight? ... It's just not possible ... You truthers just don't have your facts straight and it shows ....

Moderator/Third party: That's a valid question that you truthers like to try and dodge all the time ... I'd like an answer as well ... Who do you think did it then? ....

You see what he did there? ... At this point in most main stream debates I've seen the moderator would now choose to take the baton and run with it or just move on to something else entirely sighting "time constraints" thus purposely not giving the truther the chance to pound the debunker with the fact that he just said free fall was COMPLETELY impossible then covered himself with a complete lie when he was obviously caught in a situation where he would have to admit that a free fall event in fact DID happen ... Even if it was only two and a half out of six and a half seconds it should not have happened AT ALL ... This point alone should have won this debate right there but because the debunker was able to successfully "redirect" the truther's point was instead rendered moot ... Don't ever be afraid to say "Now wait a minute ... Back up here and acknowledge this!" ... Hold their feet to the fire and refuse to "move on" to something else ....

I have been in rigorous scientific debates with experts who know far more than me with vast resources at their disposal ... They all turn tail and run as soon as they realize they aren't going to buffalo me with a bunch of fancy equations and scientific jargon ... As long as you realize that a lie is a lie just like a pig is a pig no matter how much lipstick it wears you will find the flaw in their argument every time because I guarantee you there is one ... The only way a debate would ever get "too complex" is if you let it ... It's never happened on one of my threads or to one of my "students" ... But I can't be all things to all threads at all times and neither can you so choose your battles wisely... Above all else and most importantly remember this ... Once you choose your battle don't ever give up no matter what ... The most effective technique is to have a reputation for staying in it for the long haul every time ... Doing so will make "debunkers" clear a path for you more than anything else I could ever teach you ... It works!!! ... I should know .....

9/11 Truth on Netflix

If you are trying to introduce someone to the 9/11 truth movement that has Netflix, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, can be beamed onto their TV in seconds via their streaming service! Reviews from Netflix subscribers can be read here on the Neflix site. Many other great documentaries are available, including the first and third Zeitgeist films.

Why we KNOW the 911 Truth 'Debunkers' are Actually Propagandists

When dismissing or ignoring the key scientific evidence that proves the 911 attacks upon the World Trade Centre involved inside help most 'Debunkers' rest their case upon a few central fallacies - that the key evidence is not adequately proven or that the conspiracy material being raised are side-issue anomalies.

The fact that many leading 'debunkers' maintain this obviously false position, in the face of hard evidence and heavy rebuttals grounded in basic scientific principles - such that either the scientific principle is wrong or the 'debunker' is wrong- strongly implies that these individuals are being disingenuous and are acting as cover-up artists for the criminals involved.

For Example: When faced with the overwhelming evidence of Melted Steel, a clear sign of incendiary (chemically induced heat) action upon the buildings - something that is not possible with normal fires, but is possible with pre-planted devices- the debunkers revert to two tactics. They claim that there was no evidence of Melted Steel or they will say that it is possible for such melting to occur inside the rubble pile. In regards to the latter, the melting that was recorded was extensive and lasted many weeks. It would have required impossible blast furnace or impossible 'naturally occurring' chemical-incendiary-forming conditions. In the  former instance, where they say there is no evidence of melted steel, we can see this is patently absurd in the following 2 minute video:



Furthermore, the 'debunkers', in making their case, often tout their experience and scientific expertise. However, in place of a substantiated argument they use their knowledge to mislead and nitpick AROUND the obvious facts. Delivered with authoritative rhetoric the leading debunkers cast 'doubt' upon the veracity of the melted steel evidence - that, in their 'expert opinion', perhaps all we saw was melted lead or aluminium and therefore the fires were not so hot, that there was never melted steel, that there have been no adequate scientific studies, that elements of the 'truther' studies have errors etc. Their arguments, however elaborate, remain baseless, and tend to mislead or obfuscate the direct evidence that can be seen in the above clip.

A favourite debunker tactic is to use FALSE ANALOGIES, that do not actually correlate to the WTC fire evidence, in order to provide an 'explanation'. This is something that will fool some of the people some of the time.

An example of a false analogy in relation to our particular example is to claim 'the rubble pile fires might have acted like a furnance and melted steel beams'. In this case we can recognise that a furnace utilises a lot of fuel (a sea of coals) plus air in order to achieve such melting -something that ordinary fires cannot do. There was not enough fuel, and no sea of coals, inside the pile in which to generate such high temperatures. An experiment that placed a steel beam in a huge bonfire caused no melting at all. One must be careful to consider what these propagandists are saying and whether they are really providing a rational explanation for what was observed.

Regardless of the Debunker tactics, often delivered with ridicule, ANYONE with eyes, ears and half a brain should be able to see that the official story is false and see that the evidence for the inside job is strong - provided such people can think for themselves and do a bit of comparative research like matching claims with real world evidence and experience. It does not matter what level of expertise these people claim - if documented experiments and observation refute their claims, then they are wrong.
____________________________________________________

Please remember that both 911 truth researchers and debunkers, in looking at the points of evidence, do not always disagree and do come to some points of agreement. In a complex case such as this it would be unlikely if both sides did not have some areas of agreement. It is only in reference to damning material that basically proves the inside job hypothesis that the propagandists come out in force- hoping to use psychological techniques of ridicule and authority to convince people that what you see ain't so.

Here is an example of where there is agreement in regards to photographic 'molten steel evidence' not being valid. This photo that reportedly shows evidence of furnace-like glowing metal in the rubble pile was generated from a work light low in the pile:

On the other hand, other reports and images are more conclusive in terms of showing the melting of steel beams:

____________________________________________________

At the end of the day we can see that the leading debunkers are just clever propagandists - this is despite coming to an agreement on some aspects of the case. We can make this determination from how they have treated, or rather tried to obfuscate, very basic FACTS that run counter to the official story.  Melted steel was documented in relation to the destruction of the WTC buildings. Any debunker who says otherwise is pushing lies - whether consciously (likely the leading scientifically trained ones) or unconsciously (the hoodwinked public acolytes of the debunkers).

Other key points that massively undermine the official WTC collapse story, that the 'debunkers' commonly deny or downplay, in relation to high temperature incendiaries and explosives, are:

The melted concrete encased firearms recovered from the WTC site:

The many reports of explosions, in the basement and lower levels of the Towers far away from the aircraft impact zones and fires:



The Thermite incendiary signature:



The nano-thermite high tech explosive materials - evidence that remains unrefuted:



The symmetrical Freefall collapse of World Trade Centre 7



All of these are not fringe anomalies.  Each presents independently damning and converging lines of evidence to show there were explosives and  incendiary materials used upon the WTC buildings. It is important to note that the official narrative states that only NORMAL FIRES, fuelled by furniture and ignited by the aircraft impacts, took down these huge structures. In the case of WTC7 there was just ordinary fire.

The truth movement claims are solid refutations of the government account that the debunkers try to defend. That they continue to do so, when any sane person would realise the futility of their position, makes them suspect propagandists who are helping in the cover-up.

When prosecutions of the lead NIST investigators begin, investigations into the leading debunkers must also be initiated. Treason was committed against the people of the United States on 911 and those involved in any capacity, MUST be held to account.

Related Info:

National Geographic Thermite 'Debunking' Debunked via Experiment:

911 Free Fall Radio: Mark Basile and WTC Dust Experiments

Mark Basile is a chemical engineer who has worked in the industry for thirty plus years and has been a pioneer of the 9/11 Truth movement when it comes to the hard evidence. He is also featured in the latest movie by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, "9/11 Explosive Evidence, Experts Speak Out". In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall he discusses with Bernie and Andy his work with the WTC dust, his own discovery of thermitic materials in it, and the new experiment with the dust that he is hoping to conduct.



http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/mark-basile-and-wtc-dust.html

Please help out with a donation towards the completion of Mark Basile's new nano-thermite study if you are able. Even a $1 donation helps! Details at: http://markbasile.org