Anyone Can Deconstruct 911 Disinformation: Simple Strategies to Help Cut through the 'Debunker' Con-Artistry

Whatever the issue, official propagandists and false skeptics (disinformation artists) use similar ploys, involving the use of misplaced arguments from authority, false analogies and fraudulent 'scientific' reports, when trying to mislead the public.

Whether it is through fraudulent studies such as the 911 NIST reports, or via the public defence of their overall conclusions - such as we see from members of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF) - the same strategies apply. As independent free-thinking individuals there are a few key points to keep in mind that can help us think critically about the subject matter and avoid being captured by unreasonable obfuscations.

Firstly, be aware of the problematic nature of arguments based on appeals to authority. Ultimately an argument based solely on authority does not hold any weight. To quote Richard Feynman; "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." In science, and rational argument, you must show how you came to your conclusions starting with the raw data (hard evidence or observations) followed by the application of logic and the scientific method. Taking things on faith, like NIST's secret computer model of the collapse of World Trade Centre building 7, is like taking the side of the church over Galileo's reasoned observations. Without the underlying data or evidence, there is no valid argument.

Secondly we must ignore ridicule and ad hominem attacks, that focus on the person rather than the argument. These sorts of ploys do nothing to advance a discussion that focusses on specific evidence. Name calling and attacks on an opponent's work unrelated to the topic are largely irrelevant. Regardless of the person's background, if their source material is unimpeachable and their argument is rational it matters not who they are. If you can confirm or replicate the argument then it is solid.

Thirdly be aware of the employment of trick arguments used by fake skeptics who pretend to act as 'independent arbiters' of the issue. The two main tricks are outlined below.


1. FALSE ANALOGIES

False analogies are one of the most commonly encountered tricks that are used in two main ways.

The first is in a general way designed to freeze out or stop a detailed appraisal or prevent thinking about a contentious subject before the person even looks at any facts or data. A disinformation artist will try to associate the criticism of an official narrative by associating it with discredited or 'lunatic' ideas that imply mental impairment (stupidity or illness). The 'guilt by association' trick, a logical fallacy, is a powerful psychological deterrent to many who only have a passing interest in the debate. By telling the public that a belief in one subject is similar to a belief in another 'discredited' or 'socially repugnant' issue will prevent people, who often have limited 'spare' time, from even considering what is being debated.

The second way the false analogy is used occurs within a fairly detailed argument, when considering points of evidence. The disinformation artist will use a false analogy that pretends to account for a point of (damning) evidence, often showing off a ton of detailed knowledge in the process, and yet  not actually offering a valid rebuttal. The analogy being used will not apply to the particular circumstance. This is how long winded and science packed 'debunker' or official reports are produced. They may seem impressive in terms of volume, but get an 'F' when it comes to relevance. We see this in various failed fire collapse analogies, applied to the world trade centre buildings on 911.

The disinformation artists might claim there was a raging inferno inside the Twin Towers, and use damage seen in a wildfire analogy to show warped metal, upon which a great amount of material can be compiled, whilst ignoring the fact that the specific fires in question on 911 cannot be construed as a 'raging inferno', that fire tests on steel beams, and previous fires in steel-framed high rise buildings, show negligible damage to such structures despite fairly intense fires. The analogies do not hold.

2. PRODUCING FALSE OR ERRONEOUS STUDIES

False or erroneous studies are used to claim an explanation that satisfies the official position. The disinformation artists will contend that the argument has been settled (this time not via an ad hoc analogy) but through direct analysis or experimentation. The Bazant twin tower 'crush down' collapse paper and the Millet study on the nano-thermite are the two main faux explanations outside the fraudulent NIST paper (that has been thoroughly dismantled by the AE911truth.org) that are/were often cited (even if implicitly). 911 truth 'debunking' proponents will point to this research whilst being unaware or unwilling to acknowledge the bankruptcy of these sources. Other sources like the National Geographic 'documentary' or the Popular Mechanics book on 911 make up some of the other cited material used in debate that have been thoroughly debunked.

In open discussions the disinformation artists will point to the fraudulent and erroneous studies and claim this as an answer.


*Disinformation Artist Rebuttal strategy - which they use after their bankrupt points of argument have been exposed.

General false and hypercritical (nit-picking) rebuttals are commonly found in many online discussion threads, usually delivered when their position flounders. You can easily identify the invalid nature of these accusation by following the course of the discussion and fact checking what was said. Disinformation artists will accuse their targets of cherry picking (take out of context) information, that the targets are avoiding certain key issues, that they have inflated trivialities, or they will accuse the target of being unable to comprehend the argument when IT IS THEY WHO are GUILTY of acting in such a way.

Propagandists will use this tactic to frustrate, discourage and insult their opponent and stifle the thread. This may fool some observers to the debate thread but will actually educate anyone with a shred of intelligence as to the nature of the 'debunker' and thus teach a valuable lesson.

So dear reader, by keeping these points in mind you should be able to see through the propaganda.

All you need to do is research both sides of the argument, understand the crux of the issue or key scientific principle, and be aware of the established (primary source) facts which will reveal who is being truthful. This exercise may take some time, but various online resources are available to help you speed the process. Common sense will tell you if one of the debaters is trying to twist the discussion.

Be aware that minor 'mistakes' may appear on both sides of a debate, especially when we deal with murky subjects where not all the facts are known (although key facts may be known - like melted steel). Dead ends in criminal investigation do not mean the end of the investigation. Wise observers will recognise that an error does not necessarily invalidate the entire argument so long it does not strike at the crux of the matter under analysis (melted steel, nano-thermite, freefall collapse rates).

Carefully check the facts and the evidence will speak for itself. Given time anyone can come to their own reasoned conclusions.

Spookyone

911 WAS an Inside Job: Proof versus Speculation

911 WAS an Inside job.

This is not mere speculation. It is proven fact.

Debunkers and defenders of the official 911 story imply that the "conspiracy theorists" have no basis to make this claim. However, the hard science has proven the case.

From the physical evidence we find at the World Trade Centre site we KNOW 911 must have involved inside help.

Why ? Because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to find tons of melted steel, chemical traces of thermitic materials, the actual remains of high tech military explosives, and to see the freefall collapse of a steel framed building, WITHOUT employing incendiary or explosive devices.

The forensic material here represents hard SMOKING GUN evidence of the explosive demolition of these buildings.

On the other hand, the official 911 narrative deliberately avoids all of this damning forensic proof. The NIST computer simulations that form the "backbone" of the WTC investigation are built upon unverified and flawed speculation - especially in the case of WTC7 where we find that their collapse simulations diverge substantially with what was seen.

The key point to recognise here is that the computer modelling data NIST used to create their simulations has never been independently checked. These simulations may have the accuracy of a cartoon animation for all we know. No one can be sure. Consequently their simulations, that do not match with the video of the collapses, must be considered unconvincing and unproven hypotheticals- fanciful speculation in the face of the forensic proof of foul play presented by critics of official story.

Moreover, there are so many nonsensical and contradictory items appearing in the NIST version of the WTC collapses that it is obvious the official account constitutes a cover-up. Of particular note are the outright LIES highlighted by David Ray Griffin in this essay where he explains "Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False".

911 WAS an Inside job. This is not speculation, it is fact.

Everyone must be made aware of the 911 evidence so that a real criminal investigation can be launched. If we accept the official lies we'll never see an end to the War on Terror ...

[Note: A criminal investigation should start with those who lied under oath at the 911 Commission, those who testified behind closed doors (Bush and Cheney), and with those at NIST who are involved in covering up clear evidence of Treason. ]

By Spookypunkos

General Richard Myers Asked About Nano-thermite Explosives Found in WTC Dust

Source: c-spanarchives.org 05/14/2009

Thanks to my friend Mark over at WeAreChange Indiana for bringing this to my attention.

At 35:27 Myers is asked by a caller about the new scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."



Notice how the host immediately mentions that "for the past 8 years" they "have been getting calls from people who still believe there was a conspiracy on 9/11." Apparently she didn't listen to what the caller said, who had just informed her that nano-thermite has demolished 9/11 conspiracy theories!

Meyers then immediately says that he doesn't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories because he "saw the plane parts around the Pentagon." As I have often done, I again point to the words of Jim Hoffman of the website 911Research:

The Pentagon Attack:The No-Jetliner Claims

Are they based on rational evaluation of evidence?

Or are they an enormous hoax?

Do they expand the Truth Movement?

Or do they marginalize it by reinforcing the Conspiracy Theorist stereotype?

Meyers then states that "people saw the planes actually crash into World Trade Centers," this was in reference to another marginalizing force in the 9/11 truth movement: the no-planers, or people that believe no planes were used in any of the strikes that day. This small faction of the movement was used to demonize 9/11 truthers earlier this year in an FBI drama on the AE television network.

As Paul Joseph Watson of the website PrisonPlanet.com reported:

The plot of the show, which stars Patrick Swayze, centers around an attempt to infiltrate a group who are suspected of smuggling Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers into Iraq. In one scene, a member of the group talks with an FBI agent who is operating undercover.

'Are you a truther or a sheep?' the man asks the FBI agent.

He continues, '9/11 was a false flag operation man, wake up, a self-inflicted wound to control the masses, you know there was no planes, all of them were holograms and CGI.'

The man then takes a drag on a marijuana spliff and gives the FBI agent a crazed look.

The insertion of the 9/11 truther caveat in the episode serves no purpose except seemingly to convince the viewer that the man is unstable and dangerous. The mention of CGI and holograms, an obsessive tenet of an extreme fringe that attempted to hijack the 9/11 truth movement a few years ago, also serves only to detract more credibility from the subject.

Then in regard to the nano-thermite, and to his credit, Meyers states that "if there's new evidence it should be examined." Now if he would just convince the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who were charged with investigating the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7, to do their job, we might be in business.

In a recent report about the nano-thermite discovery, by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy-award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, she stated that upon informing an official with NIST about the paper he replied, “Oh, we have just received a copy of this ourselves and don’t want to comment.”

Sharing my sentiments she concluded her report by stating:

If the United States under President Barack Obama is trying for a new, more honest transparency in government, shouldn’t the nanothermitic research presented by Professors Harrit, Jones and others be at least discussed and commented upon by our taxpayer-funded U. S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology?

As of this date, I still have no other response from NIST beyond their Q & A papers that say NIST did not test for the residue of thermitic compounds in the WTC steel and that "NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely."

In regard to another topic brought up by the caller: war game exercises on 9/11, Meyers stated that "there was an air defence exercise going on at the time, but it was very small scale," in reality there were several different war games, and other exercises, taking place on 9/11 that closely mimicked many of the days events. Meyers was well aware that more than one exercise was taking place on 9/11, as he has admitted this in the past himself when questioned about the subject by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2006. Meyers suggested now, as he did then, that the exercises actually enhanced their response, however, this is contradicted by much evidence, as detailed by the following clip from the documentary film Loose Change Final Cut.



Update:

Regarding this section of the film, Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog is obviously not able to refute any of the stronger points raised, as he only focuses in on one small piece of supporting evidence, he argues:

They show an Air Force officer saying that "We battled many phantoms that day," but they don't mention that he was not talking about the bogus "insertions" that the CT nuts talk about. He was referring to phantom Flight 11, which the government thought for awhile had not hit the World Trade Center and instead was flying south to Washington, as well as Delta 1989 and other planes which were feared as possible hijacking targets.

While I agree that Pat is right about what Meyers was referring to, he is not right about the false radar blips being bogus. This is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in the article "'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks" on 911blogger.com, which notes that:

...In the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.)

Furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence that Delta 1989 was part of a live-fly hijacking exercise on 9/11.