Every so often a disinfo-misinfo video that claims to be proof that no planes were used during the 911 attacks appears. Or reappears. This video is doing the rounds presently:
While the attacks of 911 were definitively the result of an 'inside job', constituting a criminal conspiracy, real aircraft were involved. The video in question makes two claims, both of which shall be addressed.
_______________________________________
The 1st claim is that the plane cannot cut through the steel structure of the building.
It can.
Given enough speed it should. In WW2 relatively slow flying Japanese propeller driven aircraft, made of aluminium and wood, that hit steel battleship armour put airplane shaped holes through the sides of the ships:
The 2nd claim was that the wing of the aircraft should have covered the building as it flew by but appeared to disappear when it made contact.
The answer to this 'problem' is found by understanding the camera's perspective. The buildings we see on the left are actually in the foreground. The aircraft's wing moves behind it because it's positioned in the background along with the Twin Towers. A direct debunking of this point can be found here:
World Trade Center - Holographic or CGI Plane? - Debunked
Besides, there's HEAPS of witnesses and other videos of the second plane hitting the building:
It is more logical to assume there is something 'wrong' with that one video than all the rest of the evidence.
The no planes video is misinformation. I believe it is being pushed intentionally to smear the truthful evidence of inside help in the attacks. Rational people who research this matter should be able to make up their own minds about the (lack of) strength to these claims.
While some people will believe anything labelled 'conspiracy' some will not believe in any claim of conspiracy no matter how hard the evidence. Not everything is a conspiracy but they do exist, as evidenced from history.
Often a lot of relatively ordinary actions are conspiratorial in nature, especially in business and government. A lot of the problem in comprehending how things work comes with the idea of a 'big conspiracy'. When something seems impossible or too heinous to have been the work of elements from 'our own side' the mind tends to reject the notion.
The key for the interested observer is to engage in some level of research, to check basic facts, while thinking logically and conservatively. Look for hard, concrete proof that can settle the case/debate one way or another. Also look for fundamental errors in official accounts that will consist of internal contradictions, impossibilities, or unprovable conjecture masquerading as fact. It basically comes down to recognising the difference between the unsubstantiated (official) claims versus the ones you can trace to hard data or observation. You should also be thinking about the nature of primary and secondary sources of information when it comes to determining what happened. When the verifiable evidence runs contrary to the official narrative, you can be fairly certain that the said account is false (or a half truth).
The following text, taken from a previous post, highlights the fundamental truths that underpin the forensic evidence proving the 911 attacks on the World Trade Centre Buildings MUST have involved inside help:
''People who are unfamiliar with the scientific evidence, that proves the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed using explosives on 911, commonly make the mistake of ASSUMING that it would be 'impossible' to rig these structures for demolition.
This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.
Another big problem faced by many before they even begin to filter information (looking for fundamental points of evidence) is the fact that there is a mixture of disinformation artists and kooks that can dissuade many from looking into the details of a case.
The disinformation artists, often posing as experts, or using their expertise to deceive, plus those that believe them, will peddle false explanations and heap ridicule that can mislead and discourage the unwary. Because of this, many people shy away for fear of either being wrong, in the face of authoritative rhetoric, or in fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy-tard' or 'truth-tard' with associations to stupidity or mental illness. On the other hand the genuine kooks (plus the disinformation artists posing as such) will dissuade the inexperienced thinker via their confabulation of the conspiracy in question to all manner of fanciful, or seemingly fanciful issues.
However, once you accept that there is a culture of ridicule, a psychological barrier, and disinformation surrounding important 'big conspiracies', you can go forward with your evidence-seeking mind-set and look for hard facts. The only thing that will be imporant is the hard evidence. Often there will be glaring points of data that reveal the real story - but you have to take the time to look !
Fundamentally the term 'conspiracy' is only a dirty word for those that have (an understandable) trouble discerning fact from fiction. This exercise is not helped by a 'consensus' forming corporatised and untrustworthy media, including online, that is populated by various disinformation artists and professional propagandists. Verified facts can help sort out this mess and undo our psychological programming.
Please note: Stuck on my computer is a small piece of paper that reads: Always Ask Questions. Don't Assume Too Much. Be Curious. Investigate.
In an online discussion I was told to watch the documentary JFK: The Smoking Gun which some friends thought provided a good explanation to the killing - that Secret service Agent Hickey accidentally fired the fatal head shot . Having some understanding of the case I ventured the following reply:
________________________________
I just watched the doco and I have report it is another railroading of material. You can check what I am saying by Googling the Warren Commission testimony to see if the doco is being truthful. It's not all bad because the show states that the official account cannot be true. That's a good starting point.
The present McLaren case is based closely on the work of the Howard Donahue hypothesis. McLaren claims he 'forensically' examined the Warren Commission data but this looks to be false because he should have recognised multiple witness testimony to 4 shots - whereas he says there were only three in the scenario presented. He tells us the witnesses should lead us to solving the case but I don't think he followed his own advice. Implicitly he also fully believes much of the official account - key aspects of which have been shown to be highly improbable, if not false.
[like the Magic bullet theory]
At the start of the show we see that both McLaren and CBS TV (via their shooting recreation) doubt Oswald could have fired the three shots that the Warren Commission says were fired. The CBS recreation itself has problems because their 'car' does not slow down during the test firing. Anyway, like the testimony in the WC, the doco says that two of the shots were fired in quick succession - too fast for Oswald. The problem we face is that the show wants us to think that Oswald only fired twice and the Secret Service guy once. It says one shot missed because all researchers agree, including the WC - that a bullet struck the sidewalk. Consequently we are now stuck with ONE bullet hitting both JFK in the back and then Connelly - the magic bullet - to cause all the injuries.
McLaren and Donahue believe the magic bullet tale and that the bullet, Exhibit 399, smashed through tissue and bone to be only slightly deformed. E399 is clearly planted evidence. There is no way that bullet broke bone. Watch Mythbusters shooting stuff with various rounds, or even water with a high powered rifle, and see what happens. That slug didn't hit anything like bone.
Also, Governor Connelly clearly recalls that he heard gunfire, that the President had already been hit, when he was turning in his car seat and was THEN hit. The Zapruder film actually backs up his account. This means there were at least two separate hits and the miss into the sidewalk (3 shots) up to this point.
Furthermore, Oswald could not have shot Kennedy in the back and Connelly with the same bullet.
The actual location of the wound in JFK's back was at least 5 inches below the bottom of his collar, NOT in his lower neck. Even [with JFK] leaning forward Oswald's shot could not possibly line up with Connelly. Google image JFK jacket and then JFK shirt. It has been claimed that JFK's jacket rode up so that it only looked like he was struck low but his shirt could not have performed the same manoeuvre if it was tucked into his pants. In any event the folding -especially the shirt- cannot make up four or five inches of distance.
The show has serious problems with how it handles the witnesses they highlight and how they don't fully relate what they say to railroad their hypothesis.
The testimony of James Humes M.D. represents the material put out by the Bethesda examination that was by all accounts very poorly handled - it appears to be a fraud. The show mentions the gag order placed on people in attendance which the radiologist later in show, Jerrol Custer, recalls. Custer in other interviews points to a cover-up of the forensic data and indicates a large wound to the rear of JFK's skull.
Humes' account conflicts with those at Parkland who saw a large exit wound in the right rear portion of JFK's skull. This is one of the main problems with the show in relation to the forensics - it takes the overall WC conclusions at face value in terms of vetting/accepting evidence. It ignored conflicting testimony and photographs including those conflicting pictures from the autopsy (ie the shirt and the head taken from the side pic).
The show completely ignored what occurred at Parkland beyond the argument with the Secret Service. No mention is made of the accounts by the medical staff who viewed the body of the President.
When it came to linking the head shot to Secret Service agent Hickey the show makes only one claim it supports with testimony - that of Sam Holland who said he saw the SS agent pull a weapon after the first shot. The show leaves out the fact that this is the same Sam Hickey who stood on the overpass with other witnesses and stated he saw a white puff of smoke coming from the grassy knoll. The affidavit read by the actor playing Hickey only spoke the last three or four sentences from his Dallas testimony. They left out the fact that he said he heard 4 gunshots and saw the smoke from the knoll.
The other two witnesses appearing in the show, the police officer and Senator Ralph Yarborough say they saw the SS gun pulled at a time after the last shot. These people do not say they saw any gun before this point. We are then told that there are other witnesses to the gun being pulled before the final shot. This is not a convincing argument in light of these examples.
One point that comes out in the doco is the fact that gunsmoke was smelt by many at ground level - indicating at least one shooter in relatively close proximity.
Final point. All the evidence coming directly from the authorities, who were shown in the doco to be involved in a cover-up of some kind, must be suspect and their material treated carefully. Even the Zapruder film appears to be altered. A witness to an early screening before it was confiscated says that their was white spray all over the place during the head shot and that it lasted for a while - much longer then the red blotch we see today. Also the cop on the bike got blasted with brain matter and so did the SS agents in the car behind (the latter example clearly mentioned in the doco). This seems indicative of a substantial rear exit wound.
The 'JKF: Smoking Gun' doco does not substantiate its hypothesis. Some its claims are refuted or are impossible considering a fuller account of the specific points it raises. Apologies for the long winded reply, but if I just made a short retort that would not help much in understanding the problems with such a slick production.
I found a very short and concise refutation of the Howard Donahue hypothesis that can be found at the following link:
It's a quick read that respectfully addresses the failings of Donahue's analysis. Thanks for making it this far if you have read to the end! :)
_______________________________________________
Related Info:
The Men Who Killed Kennedy - Part 7 - The Smoking Guns Excellent eyewitness recounting of the evidence of multiple shooters and frontal shots plus the cover-up.
JFK: The 'Official' Conspiracy Theory Why is the establishment so desperate to reinforce the official narrative behind the assassination of JFK 50 years later?
The truth about JFK will open a very large can of worms - and has already done so to a degree.
Abby Martin talks to Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University professor and author of 'Conspiracy Theory in America', about some the US' most controversial events and how labeling truth-seekers as 'conspiracy theorists' damages democracy.
Awesome history lesson on disinformation and a discussion about applying logic to suspicious circumstances. Everyone can ask questions, what is important is seeing what evidence there is that either supports or refutes the suspicions. Provable facts count, on a case by case basis, not generalisations. However, when we have a record of State criminality then it is rational to be immediately suspicious of many terrorist events.
Just remember the term 'State Crimes Against Democracy'. High level corruption doesn't just happen in third world dictatorships. A basic lesson for those unaware of the propaganda and corruption that surrounds us.
When it comes to disinformation and pushing official propaganda 'Skeptic' Michael Shermer is perhaps one of the best known talking heads in the mainstream media. With his use of trick arguments, often delivered as sweeping and false generalisations, including blanket denials that are made by appealing (wrongly) to an argument from authority, it sure looks as if Shermer is behaving as an experimental psychologist (his PhD). All too often Shermer's debating influence rests on misrepresentation or psychological/superficial means rather than through sound reason and verified fact.
This short expose will show where two separate researchers identified key problems with Michael Shermer’s arguments showing that Shermer mischaracterises 911 truth arguments, that he does not apply scientific principles, and that he muddles specific issues with all manner of conjecture and other matters not directly related to the specific questions raised by the data.
Shermer claims he follows the scientific method, but this is false.
The second critic of Shermer's listed here, Professor Anthony Hall, pointed out that Dr Shermer’s disinformation operates in large part through ‘guilt by association’ tactics (along with straw men arguments) and characterises this operation as a media performance, in which he (Shermer) peddles generalised or misrepresented dismissals of evidence, claiming academic rigor while obviously not practicing it.
Indeed, Shermer's tarring of 911 critics with the brush of mental illness, when appealing to a mass audience, can fool many people, but to a rational mind this is clearly a method of distraction away from dealing with the hard facts, which he misrepresents. Data or arguments are either substantiated or unsubstantiated - the state of one's mental health has no bearing when you are looking at specific details in science.
The first critic of Shermer quoted here is noted 911 researcher Jim Hoffman who saw through Dr Shermer's attempts at disinformation in 2005. Clipped from his 911 Research site is the following material that addresses Shermer's disregard of the scientific method:
Shermer's Unscientific Method
In fact, Shermer's entire method of attacking "conspiracy theories" is unscientific. Consider his language. Scientists almost never use universal quantifiers such as all to describe inexact phenomena. For being published in a magazine titled Scientific American, Shermer is fond of sweeping generalizations:
The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. All the 9/11 conspiracy claims are this easily refuted.
There are several errors in Shermer's assertion that "a handful of unexplained anomalies" cannot "undermine a well-established theory".
1. A single anomaly can undermine a well-established theory, as illustrated by the success of a single anomaly -- the Michelson-Morley experiment -- in overturning the well-established theory of ether. 2. The unexplained anomalies of the official story are better described as a mountain than a handful. 3. The official story is not well established in any scientific or legal sense, but only in the sense of being endorsed by corrupt government bodies, such as the 9/11 Commission, and unquestioningly embraced by nearly all media.
Shermer's approach is worse than unscientific -- it's fraudulent. He misrepresents his opponent's positions and attempts to associate them with nonsensical and offensive ideas. While failing to identify a single argument of the hundreds made by 911Research, Shermer fraudulently implies that our entire case rests on a straw man argument built on a single fact:
Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No melted steel, no collapsed towers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
One needs only to read the slides for my talk The World Trade Center Demolition to appreciate Shermer's disregard for the truth. In that talk, we refer to the vast bodies of evidence compiled on the 911Research site and apply them in multiple lines of inquiry, examining:
The historical record on the effects of fires in steel-framed skyscrapers The evidence-destruction operation at Ground Zero The failures of the column-failure and truss-failure theories The unverifiability of the progressive collapse theory The Twin Towers' collapse features -- the symmetry, rapidity, blast wave, pulverization, and excess heat -- consistent only with controlled demolition Four proofs that the Twin Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition
[Please visit the original article for linked information on these points.]
David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, which Shermer insults as "conspiratorial codswallop," takes a similar approach. Contrary to the column's implication, Griffin explicitly developed his thesis as a "cumulative argument" (p. Xiv), which he summarizes in terms of 24 different lines of inquiry (pp. 132-34).
Shermer's attack could hardly be more hypocritical. He pays lip service to the kind of cumulative argument known as inference to the best explanation, which requires the consideration of all the relevant evidence. But he avoids the vast bodies of evidence cited by skeptics like Griffin, and fails to correctly state even a single one of their arguments. Instead, Shermer embeds mentions of the works of serious skeptics within a tapestry of ludicrous ideas so as to discredit them through guilt-by-association. This approach has nothing to do with science and everything to do with sophistry. Source:http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.html
We should note that there is ALSO evidence of melted structural steel that rational truth advocates cannot not associate at all with Jet Fuel, but only with the independent demolition of the buildings. Regardless of whether Melted Steel is necessary to bring down the Towers it has been identified in abundance.
Shermer and many skeptics have outright denied, or tried (and failed) to explain away the molten steel through the use of false arguments (the jet fuel one) or to portray this as a feature of the post collapse fires. However, melted steel is present and no ordinary fire, even later ones in the rubble pile, can produce this result. This fact further contributes to the cumulative nature of the evidence in favour of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (not to mention WTC7).
At a later date we find further criticism of Shermer this time from Professor Anthony Hall who outlines the basic nature of his phony arguments in 2010.
Professor Hall identified a similar fraudulent approach being used by Shermer in an essay titled 'Scholarship, Scams and Credentials in an Academic House of Cards'. In essence Shermer is found guilty of misrepresenting key 911 truth arguments by using false associations (ie melted steel to jet fuel, and 911 conspiracy theorists to Holocaust deniers). Hall writes that:
I was not prepared for the virulence of Shermer’s verbal attacks on the wide array of targets he groups together with his McCarthyesque tactics of guilt by association. Shermer places a tent of his own imagination over a vast array of thinkers who have addressed a broad number of issues. Rather than dealing with individual thinkers as such, or dealing with the specific elements of this or that contention, hypothesis or theory, Shermer simply groups together the targets of his ridicule as an undifferentiated mass of “conspiracy theorists.” For Shermer conspiracy theorists include all those who question the lone gunman theory concerning the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, those who believe that the US moon landing was a staged event, those who address the possibility that Earth has been visited by creatures from outer space, and those who challenge various aspects of the government interpretation of what happened on 9/11. As he conflates all these issues, Shermer projects multiple power point slides showing images of human brains. These images seemed to me to be calculated to convey the message that mental illness forms the common denominator of those Shermer collectively condemns as crazed conspiracy theorists.
Shermer does major violence to the laws of evidence and proof by making vast and unsubstantiated generalizations about so-called conspiracy theorists rather than addressing the diversity of good, bad, or indifferent work done by thousands of investigators exploring scores of circumscribed problems. Shermer’s circus of pseudo-skepticism sets a terrible example for students and junior researchers. They would and should be blocked from advancing up the ladder of professional scholarship if they were to replicate Shermer’s unique brand of materialist evangelization aimed at turning the zeal of his converts against the demonized others. The complex of alleged connections said to link all thinkers with whom Shermer disagrees draws vital intellectual energies away from the tried and true methodology of setting out specific research problems that are narrowly enough defined to be comprehensively addressed with careful reference to relevant academic literature.
Shermer adds insult to injury when he indicates that all those addressing subjects that he has decided are closed to further critical examination belong in the same category as Holocaust Deniers. Here Shermer really crosses the line from mere malevolence into outright slander. As I see it this despicable smear tactic, one too frequently deployed in the effort to discredit those calling attention to certain categories of human rights violation, demeans and exploits the horrific legacy of the Nazi efforts to annihilate European Jewry. Such semantic abuses do severe injustice to the sanctity of the memory of a terrible event in history that illustrates the depths of depravity to which human beings are capable of stooping. http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october282010/scholarship-scams-ah.php
The key point to remember with 'Skeptics' like Michael Shermer is they will use a mixture of approaches that, although not constituting a rational argument, can seem reasonable to the undisciplined thinker - especially to those not familiar with the subject matter:
1.They mix together real examples of debunked, or highly questionable belief, with the current issue under review, in order to generally slander a particular line of legitimate inquiry. To these 'skeptics' there are no distinctions between the various subjects under examination - everything is the same! It is guilt, or ridicule, by association rather than addressing the specific evidence (or lack thereof) of each case. This is an exercise in presumptive dismissal. It is an unscientific and illogical approach and good observers will realise its use by pseudo skeptics to avoid whole issues as well as providing cover against answering a specific question.
2.In specific arguments the 'skeptics' often claim they are using the scientific method but instead propagate a false analogy or 'explanation' in order to dismiss the argument being made or the evidence cited. Often their false 'scientific' arguments rest on wrong assumptions. They can go into great detail, but when their basic premises are in error, they are not talking about the relevant issue.
For example, regarding the jet fuel or office fire argument that contends that the fires didn't need to melt steel but only weaken it in order for the Towers to collapse - this is an example of a false argument designed to cover for the fact that melted steel was actually found. Great detail can be made in explaining how normal fire temperatures cannot melt steel in order to avoid the fact that it was found.
The 911 truth argument is simply that there is evidence of large quantities of molten steel found in the rubble pile - that it clearly came from melted beams or columns, that there were pools of melted steel, and large amounts of iron spheres found in the dust. The obvious and logical implication here is that incendiaries must have been involved since office fires and jet fuel could not cause such phenomena.
It is apparent that Shermer's overall approach seeks to discourage rational thought (via misplaced ridicule) and to hide or obfuscate key evidence that points to inside involvement in the crime with false arguments. However, by carefully following the Shermer line of argument, and asking if he has adequately addressed the specific points of key evidence (this sometimes requires a bit of research on the part of the observer), anyone can deduce whether what is being put forward is credible - especially when it comes to basic points like melted steel or the freefall collapse rate of WTC7 (not to mention the recorded sounds of explosions and the witness testimony to these events).
Any rational witness to intrinsically false arguments, such as the ones advocated by Shermer, will almost always be able to recognise them. This leads us to suppose that Michael Shermer, who is obviously not unintelligent, more than likely realises the bankruptcy of his own arguments and is, as the critics above suggest, an agent of disinformation.
Shermer set up David Cole, the holocaust denier, to get beat up by thugs, and was recorded admitting that he helped incite violence against him or something close to that. Ry Dawson interviewed Cole about what happened (malicious slandering etc):
He “debated” James Fox and Stanton Freeman on CNN. Shermer uses his generalist reactions and doesn't properly rebut points made by (actual cases) the other panelists:
UFO Experts James Fox,Michael Shermer,Stanton Friedman,C2C Noory+ On Larry King Live 13Jul2007
Here’s an earlier post with Shermer vs Gage in late 2008. At this stage it looks like Shermer was wheeled out to give a generalised rebuttal, which then morphed into a slightly more ‘sophisticated’ ‘rebuttal’ a number of years later:
And then there is the issue where James Randi admitted, in reaction to rape claim against Shermer, that he has a bit of a reputation for this sort of thing (being sleezy to women, and getting complaints). Shermer denies everything, but even Randi makes that admission, which seems like a real kicker to me:
In this episode of 9/11 Free Fall Richard Gage AIA, 9/11 victim's family member Bob McIlvaine, and journalist Deborah Voorhees respond to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow's recent diatribe attacking 9/11 Truth. This interview includes Richard and Bob's challenge to Maddow to bring them onto her show, and Deborah's insight regarding journalistic ethics and the obstacles to getting the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence into the corporate controlled media.
_______________________________________________
Apart from a big nod to the physical evidence that trumps Maddow's put down of 'conspiracy theories' the show also explains how the mainstream media works in maintaining the cover-up.
Today there are only a few major corporations that own all the media and those employed by these huge companies are often stopped from airing stories that rock the boat. The only real independent media today is found online.
The big point raised against Maddow's case is that her 'argument' rested on a generalised dismissal implying that all conspiracies are to be rejected rather than addressing any specific information on the 911 attacks. She was simply hand waving away direct points of criticism with her misleading portrayal. Surprisingly Maddow trotted out the 911 Commission Report and the 911 Myths books as answers to everything when we know, through detailed research, that both tomes provide grossly misleading accounts of the 911 attack and the subsequent non-official investigations.
In relation to the second book, 911 Myths, that addresses the 911 truth movement, Adam Taylor writing on this blog thoroughly demonstrates how bankrupt their arguments are in a multipart refutation.
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 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:
Cass Sunstein has been hard at work I see. I haven't laughed so hard since Bin Laden went green. It seems an actual government website has a conspiracy theory debunking section. America.gov, a State Department website, has a Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation section, including an article on 9/11. This site really is the ministry of truth personified. It's the usual BS we've come to expect from debunkers, there's almost no point going though it, but I will anyway because I need to take a break from making my video about state child abuse.
The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories
Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most popular myths are:
Right from the beginning they spin it. There are not "Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories", there are numerous pieces of Evidence. They always use the word theory, they never use the word Evidence.
1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.
This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:
Ahh, the good old appeal to authority. 1200 independent Architects and Engineers aren't credible, but our few experts who have a vested interest in defending the official story are. They're credible because we say so. So shut up!
Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
"Non-experts claim", Haha. Could the propaganda get any more obvious?! Anyway, they're talking about the squibs here which seems to be the only feature of the demolitions the mainstream debunkers focus on. Popular Mechanics and the BBC only talked about the squibs as well. Perhaps because the squibs provide the least conclusive evidence for demolition. All the other features are much harder to refute, therefore they simply ignore them. Sometimes I wonder if some of the explosives were actually intentionally mistimed to provide them with a strawman.
Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded signs of any explosions prior to the tower collapses. Instead, seismic spikes were noted when debris began hitting the ground.
Well that's debatable, but again, the seismic stuff is a distraction from more conclusive evidence.
Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
Not if you control the security and have a cover story. That's the point. That's why demolition implies inside job. This is also a logical fallacy: "We can't possibly imagine how a covert demolition could be pulled off, therefore we are going to deny all the evidence that proves a covert demolition was pulled off."
Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
Now that's odd. They link to a video by RKOwens4. What's the State Department doing linking to some guy's YouTube video?! Unless ... I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks there ;).
2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”
Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:
• The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
• The flight’s black boxes were also recovered at the site.
• Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
• Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel.
