Monday, March 18, 2013


I have created this note as a way to quickly look back at debunker claims and how they don't hold water.

This is one of the best sites that debunks the debunkers.....



Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

9/11 The Myth and The Reality - David Ray Griffin

Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's Get Empirical - Pt.1 of 9

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
115 lies and omissions from the 9/11 report.


Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

Part 1: 

Part 2: 

Part 3: 

Part 4: 

Part 5: 

Part 6: 

Part 7: 

Part 8: 
“Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” Actually Validates Them
9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

Richard Gage

9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage - 20/07/2009

9/11 Truth Debate - Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig
We have all seen Richard Gage do this experiment with Cardboard boxes. Many people knock him for it but I praise him for trying to explain it to the American idiots that just don't get it.


Here is the same video of a debunker mocking Richard.



Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

The 9/11 Lies Are Out There: Editor's Notes
Debunking 9/11 Myths - Popular Mechanics - YouTube
Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Popular Mechanics Debunked:
9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics
Part 1:
How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther
The Popular Mechanics 9/11 IQ Test
9/11 Pentagon plane two stories below ground says Benjamin Chertoff of Popular Mechanics

"The plane itself was buried I believe it was two stories down underneath the A B C and down to the E rings of the Pentagon and it was compressed to a large extent to a smaller space... but they found the plane." Benjamin Chertoff
‘Official’ 9/11 propaganda embraced by truthers who say that a plane hit the Pentagon
Davin Coburn Interview

This interview was awesome!!!

The fact that a "publishing company" was allowed to see information on 9/11 that has been withheld from the general public is mind boggling. Also, Popular mechanics has refused to do anymore open debates about 9/11. I wonder why? Popular Mechanics has been debunked over and over again but yet their "story" is being spread as the truth.
Popular Mechanics Refuse To Discuss 9/11 Flight Data, Refusal Recorded Over The Phone

Audio link:
Remember Building 7 on NY1 News (James Meigs)

Popular Mechanics James Meigs admits black boxes found and studied
WTC 7 Collapse Explanation
"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST’s analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of “progressive collapse,” a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or “kinks,” in the building’s facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse." ~ Popular Mechanics. March 2005. Pg 77, first paragraph.

Read the last line..... "diagonal collapse" lol


9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

9/11 Is the LitmusTest

How To Destroy a 9/11 Truther

9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense"

9 11 Debunking for Dummies

Public Service Announcement: Conspiracy Theorist

Shit Conspiracy Theorists Say

Asch's Conformity

5 Monkeys


Model Replica of the WTC on 9/11 - Part 1 of 2

Why Towers Did not Collapse (PROOF)
Ho, Ho, Ho! 9/11 Was An Inside Job!

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says (ONION)



The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual
position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a
position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as
well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Example of a Straw Man:

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions.
That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."


Argumentum Ad Hominem

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the
character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an
argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of
the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack."

Ad Hominem

An Ad-Hominem is NOT an argument. It's a personal attack.

What is a logical fallacy?

"A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There
are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance,
factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, the Fallacy Files
is specifically concerned, not with factual errors, but with logical ones.

In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

"Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
"Your argument is a fallacy."
In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this
sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said
to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad


Fallacy: Red Herring
"Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to
divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by
leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of
"reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is
actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting
thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Dissonance increases with:

The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do
something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the
discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

The theory of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

A Lesson In Cognitive Dissonance

What is Occam's Razor?

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the
one that is simpler is the better."

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more
complicated explanations."

"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest."

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."

Occam's Razor does not follow the scientific approach and believes demonstrations and
Experiments are not necessary.
Here is a post you will see from a typical debunker.

What Truthers Do:
1) Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that
are easily knocked down.
2) Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that they can not explain.
3) Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the
9/11 argument.
4) Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of the
9/11 experts.
5) Repeat - Repeat the same conspiracy theories and regurgitated talking points.
6) Pretend - Pretend they understand physics, are structural engineers, architects
and whatever else so others believe them.
7) Get mad - Get mad at those who dont believe their delusions and resort to calling
them shills and controlled operatives.

My reply to this, I can use the same list for debunktards.