Pat Curley Has Made Up His Mind

And apparently that’s never going to change. Mr. Curley has commented on my recent article posted at ae911truth.org, and seems to think there’s a contradiction. He writes:

Box Boy Gage publishes another article supposedly debunking the latest version of the Popular Mechanics book. Get this part:

PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue. There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer.

So now we’re back to explosions?  Remember two years ago, Gage debated Chris Mohr at the University of Colorado (Boulder) where there was this exchange:

Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.

Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.

The first blatant problem I have to call Pat out on is the fact that he cites a supposed problem with Richard Gage’s argumentation, when it’s my arguments that are the focus of the article. Notice that the top of the article reads “Written by Adam Taylor.” That’s because I wrote it and make my own arguments. While ae911truth has generously posted my articles at their site, the content of those articles is mine. Since Pat apparently can’t tell the difference between something I wrote and something Richard Gage said, it’s difficult to see this as anything but a straw-man argument.

Second, there’s no contradiction to begin with. I explained this two years ago to Pat’s buddy James, who also has problems understanding arguments presented by the other side. Pat’s characterization of my article as “supposedly” debunking Popular Mechanics is also interesting, since he doesn’t actually point out anything I got wrong. I’m not particularly surprised by this, but it doesn’t make it any less irritating.

More amusing than Pat’s hand-waving, however, is a comment left by one of ScrewLooseChange’s frequent visitors “Richard Gage's Testicles.” He says of me:

Oh good, Gage got more unpaid out of Adam Taylor. Taylor’s an obnoxious little pseudoskeptical anarchist wannabe, judging from his videos.

And as usual he misses the point. The absence of physical evidence of explosions outweighs reports of "explosions" in any number.

As far as I’m aware, RGT is the first to refer to me as an anarchist, so now I can check that off the list of names I’ve been called online. And pseudoskeptical am I? How so? What characteristics of a pseudoskeptic have I exhibited? Have I made judgments without full inquiry, such as Pat has done here? Or do I frequently use ad hominems, like RGT does here and elsewhere? Or have I used double standards in the application of my criticisms, like both Pat and RGT are doing here by not criticizing Popular Mechanics for the massive amount of flaws they’ve made? And contrary to what RGT asserts, I haven’t “missed the point” at all regarding the physical evidence of explosives. We’ve covered that issue extensively at the 911Debunkers blog, and we’ve addressed attempts to invalidate that evidence as well. Me thinks the man should reconsider who’s the real pseudoskeptic here.

I’m not the first to point these things out, and it shouldn’t be necessary for me to have to keep pointing them out, but as I said at the beginning, Pat’s apparently made up his mind, and that’s evidently never going to change no matter how many times it has to be pointed out to him. 

Nitpicking the Nitpickers: Curley's Mistranslation

**Note: JM told me about SLC's post in a Youtube message, I didn't realise he had already posted a rebuttal until I submitted my post.**

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.

Pat Curley has once again claimed Sibel Edmonds lied in her letter to the 9/11 Commission by misrepresenting an article from the Chicago Tribune. He's referring to an Iranian case in which, according to Sibel, a translator received information that Osama bin Laden was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes, some of the people were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.

Pat's February 2009 analysis of the article she cited:

1. Attack in the US targeting 4-5 cities. Status: False. In fact the article quite clearly states that the impression of the official was that the attacks would be overseas.

2. Attack will involve airplanes. Status: True.

3. Some of the attackers already in the US. Status: False. No discussion of this in the article, and indeed, given that the belief was that the attack was more likely to take place overseas there is no reason to believe this claim.

4. Attack coming soon. Status: False. "...no mention of when or where the attacks might take place."

Pat makes it seem like Sibel was using that article as proof of her claim. But she was simply stating that the press had reported on the incident and that they confirmed the information was received in April 2001.

The fact is the US was a POTENTIAL target at the very least so his analysis of point 1 is bunk. He admits point 2 is true. There's no discussion about point 3 in the article so it is neither confirmed or disproven. And, with regards to point 4, "...no mention of when or where the attacks might take place" could be referring to a specific date. They could still have known that an attack would happen in the near future without knowing exactly when it was going to happen. So, even if we assume the article wasn't a deliberate damage control whitewash, it still disproves nothing. At worst Sibel may have been slightly exaggerating in her letter, but not lying like Pat claims.

This is textbook debunking - find the strawman, misrepresent, respond, exaggerate the significance and put the reader in a state of mind where they don't know who to believe any more to put them off looking any deeper into it. That's what happened to me when I fell for the Popular Mechanics article back in Winter of 2007. It never convinced me that there was no conspiracy. It just made me unsure of what to think or who to trust any more so for more than eight months I just stopped caring.

In this case, even the Chicago Tribune article admits that the incident was a key piece to the puzzle, regardless of how much you want to downplay its significance.

Here's Sibel in her own words from her August 2009 deposition: