Screw Loose Change Blog on Psychological Study of Truthers and Debunkers Online - Me on Minutiae

Pat Curley of Screw Loose Change writes:

Psychological Study of Truthers and Debunkers Online

Worth a read... 

I do have an alternate explanation for this observation:

We also found that hostility was higher in persuasive arguments made by conventionalists than in those by conspiracists. As 9/11 conspiracism is by and large a minority viewpoint in the West (WorldPublicOpinion.org, 2008), this makes sense: conventionalists, rather than focusing on presenting novel information, instead attempt to enforce conformity to the majority viewpoint (Latané, 1981).

There's an element of truth in that; keeping people in line lends itself more to denigrating the opposition, whereas converting people requires gentler persuasion.  But there's another dynamic as well.  In general, Truthers know a great deal more of the minutiae of 9-11 than those debating them.  I have been at this for over 7 years now, and I'll freely admit that many if not most Truthers know more about that day than I do (although on the important issues I have them cold).  This is probably true for most conspiracy theories for an obvious reason; if you are into a conspiracy theory you are going to spend a lot more time studying up on the event than if you believe in the conventional explanation.

But of course, what happens when a conventionalist without a lot of background knowledge runs up against a conspiracy theorist who can provide a lot of detail?  He gets frustrated and angry; he knows he's right, but he cannot provide the evidence to support his opinions and hence tends to lash out.  There's an old joke about how lawyers work: When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.  When you have the law on your side, pound the law.  When you have neither, pound the table.

Yeah, have us cold on the important issues do you, Pat? Issues like whether the NORAD stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, makes a strong enough case that the attacks involved substantial inside help, as to warrant a new investigation? Your trotting out of 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara's suggestion, that "the erroneous assertion that the military found out about Flight 93 long before they did," was due to erroneous log books, as a plausible reason for absolution of NORAD's "Lies", fails in the face of the minutiae, those "small and often not important details." But how could one know of the importance level of those details without knowing of them at all? Really though, it is no minor detail that that the initial report about Flight 93 is supported by statements from two NORAD commanders that they were already tracking the flight when it changed direction at 9:36. As noted on HistoryCommons.org:

Before 9:36 a.m. September 11, 2001: Officials Claim NORAD Is Monitoring Flight 93

According to one account given by NEADS Commander Robert Marr, some time before around 9:36 when it changes direction, while it is still flying west, Flight 93 is being monitored by NEADS. Marr describes how, “We don’t have fighters that way and we think [Flight 93 is] headed toward Detroit or Chicago.” He says he contacts a base in the area “so they [can] head off 93 at the pass.” Not only does NORAD know about the flight, but also, according to NORAD Commander Larry Arnold, “We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward DC.” (This change of direction occurs around 9:36 a.m.) [Filson, 2003] This account completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s later claim that NEADS is first notified about Flight 93 at 10:07 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] 

As Kevin Ryan recently put it, "credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines." The original timelines would have been strong evidence for complicity, because as Ryan notes, even NORAD’s 9/11 Commander Ralph Eberhart stated that, "if NORAD had been in the loop as the FAA said it was, his people would have been able 'to shoot down all three aircraft — all four aircraft.'"

And NORAD lied, AKA committed perjury, period. The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Kean admitted they were lied to and he did not know why. He can think that the 9/11 Commission's story of outlandish incompetence is correct all he wants, but the fact remains that his report failed to tie up “those loose ends" and prove that ineptitude is all that was at hand. Another such loose end that cannot be debunked was noted in the 2004 Complaint & Petition to the NY Attorney General (Spitzer at the time) for a new criminal investigation into 9/11:

Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD’s Northeastern Air Defense Sector (“NEADS”), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis–with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred–would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.

Regarding whistleblower accounts of prior-knowledge indicating complicity, there is mucho importante minutiae, AKA corroborating evidence, for the whistleblower's statement to 9/11 family member Patty Casazza that "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets," whereas Pat is just brushing it aside based on his world view which dictates it had to be "some con man" she was speaking to.

As Fran Shure at colorado911visibility.org pointed out to me, Casazza's account corroborates an earlier account by David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Jesse Ventura's book American Conspiracies recounts another similar warning passed along to John Ashcroft, Ventura writes:

Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, said under oath in a New York courtroom that a longtime associate of his, Susan Lindauer, warned him several times and as late as August 2001 "that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center," an attack "that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon." Lindauer, who says she was a CIA asset, claimed to have made an attempt to inform John Ashcroft at the Justice Department, who referred her to the Office of Counter-Terrorism.

Dismissal of this as corroborating evidence doesn't debunk the fact that we will never know if any of these individuals are pulling off an unpaid con job unless we have an investigation willing to investigate their accounts.

Commenting on Jon Gold's book, Pat has wrote:

The "ignored and censored whistleblowers" include Patty Cassazza's mysterious roadside informant who claimed that the US government knew everything about the attacks including the date and method. Gold bitterly notes that I "debunked" that claim by saying that Patty was duped by a conman. But note the oddball response from the Truthers to that particular claim. Sibel Edmonds comes up with the LIHOP faction's dream witness and what happens? Complete and utter lack of curiosity about him or her. If I were a Truther, I'd be asking Patty about this person--was it a man or a woman? How old? Did he say what branch or agency of the government he was in? Can we get him on tape?

As Gold points out in his "Facts Speak..." article, Cassazza stated that most whitleblowers did not come forward because they were not subpoenaed by the 9/11 Commission, which in doing so would ensure them not being retaliated against like FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds was, as detailed in the ACLU article, "Sibel Edmonds: A Patriot Silenced, Unjustly Fired but Fighting Back to Help Keep America Safe." So shame on the 9/11 Commission, not truthers. In an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, Edmonds reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, but was subsequently ignored.

In 2011 Edmonds reaffirmed these points as factual and provided the testimony of the agent who first raised them. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote, "Pat Curley is confident that if we were to ever see the unredacted testimony, it will bear no resemblance to what Sibel posted. Well, how about supporting the truth movement in a quest for a new investigation so we can maybe see it unredacted then? No? Didn't think so."

Lastly, were explosives used? No debunking the fact that if the 9/11 probers hadn't skipped key forensic tests we might have settled that issue long ago. I'm still working on getting it laid to rest once and for all with the campaign I'm helping spearhead at MarkBasile.org, if you want to help out! No use looking for what's not there the government investigators said. A circle back to them retort, no way to know unless we look. F-ing simple!

Again, no shortage of missed "minutiae" on this topic by Pat.

I might be wrong about where I suspect this all leads, but you are wrong that we shouldn't have an investigation that gives credible explanations for contradictions, investigates whistleblower claims, and conducts forensic tests. If 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations like this?

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. 

'Debunker' Pat Curley: the King of Scientific Peer-review

Pat "Yoda" Curley, ready to battle troofer stormtroopers from his Dagobah-like tract home in Phoenix.

One of the peer-reviewers of the "Active Thermitic Material" paper has been identified as Prof. David L. Griscom. The current situation is sumerized by "Sitting-Bull" on 911blogger.com:

It took Prof. Griscom 4 long years to become convinced of 9/11 truth. Science did it. And: Some "Debunkers" already claim he was chosen because he was a "truther". That's totally bogus. He did not play a vocal or any role in the 9/11 truth movement prior 2007/2008, Bentham surely did not find his rare blog entries on the issue for selecting him, but did search their database for valuable scientific referees in the field of research with good experience- no wonder they found Prof. Griscom.

Griscom notes that he is also a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has "refereed at least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts" and was himself published twelve times in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics.

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change states that "even the Troofers have their limits" and notes that 911 Blogger user "Loose Nuke" (who I have great respect for) raises the question of whether Jones' recommended Griscom as a reviewer. Pat ignores the fact that Loose Nuke later concurs that "Griscom's credentials establish him as qualified to review" the paper and instead focuses on his perception that Jones intentionally dodged the question about recommendation. This seems unlikely being that authors are allowed to suggest referees as was demonstrated by a study cited by "Swing Dangler" in the comments. This study entitled "Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors" concludes:

Author-and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication.

So, considering Griscom's qualifications, the results of this study, and the fact we were informed by one of the paper's author's, Gregg Roberts, that, "The other reviewer was not a truther. And that reviewer provided a much less rigorous review then did Griscom - while also recommending publication if the review points were dealt with adequately," it is clear that the review was legitimate and thus Jones would not need to hide if he recommended Griscom. Jones very well could have just fired back a response to Loose Nuke and in doing so failed to adequately address one question asked.

Further evidence that Jones was not dodging the question is demonstrated by the fact that Loose Nuke also asked, "Why was David Griscom thanked in the Active Thermitic Acknowledgements?" Jones did not answer this question in the comments, but did essentially answer it on the Visibility 9/11 podcast at the time of publication:

Usually peer-review is done completely anonymously, but it is possible for a reviewer to identify himself. I've seen that done before. (Note: Jones, has authored or co-authored over forty peer reviewed publications, including three papers for which he was first author in the renowned journal NATURE) In this case one of the reviewers identified himself as a physics professor, a Fellow of the American Physical Society... well credentialed... I checked... like 80 peer-reviewed papers of his own.

So it is no secret or problem that Jones was made aware Griscom had been selected as a reviewer prior to publication.

Furthermore, Jones stated in the comments that "BYU scientists did a review of the paper" that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed in comments on another post that the paper was "peer-reviewed by the Physics dept. chair at BYU... because two of the authors are from this dept." Elsewhere he revealed that he was told by the chairman that the paper "was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11."



Then we have chemical engineer Mark Basile, who was not involved in the paper, recently stating on video that he has unequivocally confirmed its findings and even obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum.



French researcher Frédéric Henry-Couannier also confirmed several aspects of the experiments. And it was reported by a Danish media outlet that professor of inorganic chemistry Jens Ulstrup, of the Technical University of Denmark, "felt that the assessments were made on the basis of 'very suitable' tests by current standards."
Pat ignores all of that though, because Griscom is a "sack of fecal matter... Troofer moron... AAAS-hole... nut" who has theorized that the planes on 9/11 were swapped out for drones and that the passengers were in on it and are still alive.
Gregg Roberts responds:

Many scientists who have done good work in their field have strange beliefs that have nothing to do with the quality of their scientific work. Using Griscom's analysis of what happened to the passengers and generalizing from that to whether he provided a tough, accurate, technical review of the red/gray chips paper, is an unjustified leap.

All this trash talk is just a way to avoid dealing with what the paper says. Even the editor-in-chief who perversely resigned in protest rather than firing the editor who allegedly published the paper behind her back didn't criticize the paper itself.

Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers had this to say:

Did Pat just imply that the individuals in the peer-review process favoured the article being published when there was some obvious flaw to the paper that should have prevented publication? Where is the error? Has he cited a peer reviewed response to the material presented? Do the existing peer-reviewers have less of an understanding about the science involved here than Mr Pat Curley? If the fault is so obvious, where is the peer reviewed criticism?

Here is how Pat's peer-review of the paper would have gone.
Pat:
I think what we are looking at here is just "bits of paint and rust." Also, you say here that thermite burns at 400-450°C., but it actually burns much hotter.
Reply from authors:
First off, there is no kind of paint in existence capable of producing a high-temperature chemical reaction as evinced by the fact that the chips produce molten iron spheres. Secondly, paint from the WTC has a different chemical composition. Finally, we soaked the chips in a paint solvent for 55 hours and they remained intact.
In regard to your second point, we were saying that 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. We have forwarded your stunning incomprehension of the material to the editor and expect them to promptly find a more qualified referee.
Joseph Nobles over at the "debunking" site ae911truth.info states, "And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms?"

Nice reading comprehension there Joey. What Griscom actually said was that he "found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!"
You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on his review!

Nothing has changed since Steven Jones told "debunkers" to Put up or Shut up on April 7, 2009:

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands...
IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Related Info:

Prof. David L. Griscom: "Pay for Publish" without Peer Review is False!
Jones' Dust Analysis - Common Arguments Addressed
Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked - "peer review"

Mr. Deets Shows Curley is the Clown

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town was a comedy, and in his post "Mr Deets Goes To Town" Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog makes the case that former NASA aerospace research engineer Dwain Deets' new site called 7 Problems with Building 7 is a comedic show as well.

Pat states, "It's about as bad as you might expect."

I myself expect former NASA guys to be pretty sharp, but maybe Pat's "snarky commentary" will cut him to shreds.

Deets' site states, "seven problems - One: No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane."

Pat replies, "Ooooh, mysterious! No plane struck St. Nick's cathedral either. Or, you know, WTC 3, 4, 5, or 6."

Pat is trying to equate the damage to these buildings, and in one case the destruction of a puny 4-story church, with WTC 7. Doing this is even more ludicrous today than it was when radio host Rob Breakenridge did it in April of 2008.

Why?

Because the August 2008 government report on WTC 7, oddly enough, put the final nail in this type of talking point when it stated that Building 7 was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building," and that the fires were "similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings."

Deets' site states, "Two: No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.) More on no fires."

Pat Replies, "No evidence? These retards continually refer to the eyewitness testimony about "explosions", but the minute we talk about WTC-7, suddenly they are not interested in what the firefighters saw."

Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing

Deets' site states, "Four: No mainstream media covered the building collapse other than that first day, when Dan Rather said on network TV, "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much... when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down." More on Dan Rather."

Pat replies, "Key word in there: Reminiscent. As usual, the Troofers are unable to recognize analogies when they see them."

Pat's words are only analogous to a good point because he omits the un-debunkable evidence laid out in points 6 and 7 on Deets' site:

Six
New York Times characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation," a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures. More on FEMA.

Seven

No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen. More on NIST.

Forensic evidence of explosives combined with the resemblance of explosive demolition equals CONSPIRACY PROVEN FACT, NOT THEORY!

PROVE US WRONG!


PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Related Info:

Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses

The CIT Faithful

Your eyes do not deceive you! :)

Pat Curley
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The CIT faithful continue to do battle with the Truth Action folks. What I am constantly amazed at is the ability for Stefan, the CIT groupie, to rationalize the flyover theory. Consider this:

"The first thing I’d like to address is this notion that witnesses are more likely to get the flight path of the plane wrong than whether the plane hit the building.

It does not sound very likely to me, and I’m sure to a lot of people. The part of the experience from seeing the plane until the impact was in some cases 10-15 seconds. The point of “impact” was an instance. When virtually their entire eye witness experience involved watching a plane fly through the air, and just a split second of it involved a frightening and traumatic instant, I personally have no qualms whatsoever with saying the complete opposite is the case."

No, of course he has no qualms about that; without that leap of faith the CIT scenario crashes and burns.

"Arcterus said the North side approach is wrong, meaning he agrees that all the witnesses were wrong about a simple left right judgement, and that they were all wrong in such a way as to corroborate each other, and that they were all so stupid they rejected the correct flight path even when prompted with it."

Again, the supposed "fact" that all the witnesses agreed about the North Side approach and "corroborate" each other is actually a strong indication that CIT is not showing all their witnesses. Just on the basis of the odds, one or two of the witnesses should have gotten it "wrong"; the fact that they did not is a strong indication that CIT is playing games with their witnesses.

"1) Logically, there is no damage to the Pentagon that could be ascribed to a Boeing hitting from the NoC flight path. I know you have said there is, but come on mate, please. I realise that the notion that a plane from the SoC path could just could in a million to one shot cause that damage, is acceptable. It is not what you would expect and we all know that."

Is he seriously claiming that there's only a one-in-a-million chance that a SoC approach would cause that damage? Or is he suggesting that there's only a 1,000,000-1 chance that it was an SoC approach?

"2) There is no conceivable logical reason for faking one set of flight path damage, planting light poles and so on and then driving the plane into the Pentagon anyway."

He's right, you know. If we assume that the light pole evidence was faked, then it makes no sense to fly the plane into the Pentagon. And how does he know that the light pole evidence was faked? Because the plane didn't fly into the Pentagon. It's circular logic.

I also love that he claims to be just arguing this "evidence", but throws around ad hominems like frisbees:

"Arabesque is rapidly becoming a comedy show."

"Mistakenly thinking Arabesque was more honest than in fact he was...."

Related Info:

The CIT Virus

Who Needs Debunking When Insults Are So Easy

Scootle's post thanking the Screw Loose Change blog for their lack of debunking and promotion of 9/11 truth has inspired me to expand on his thoughts and answer a question for my rebunking ally.

First off Scootle, one of their commenters recently stated, "We're at the mocking stage now, well past any debunking."

I have seen comments from Pat Curley before that basically state the same thing, so yes, as you thought might be the case, they are getting lazy. Dr. Frank Greening, while sometimes doing good work, can be just as lazy, as was recently demonstrated when he did some calculations regarding the recent paper on the nano-thermite discovery, Pat reprinted the following "key points.":

I've already done a calculation of how much heat energy a layer of nano-thermite (such as the one allegedly found by Jones et al) could generate. My conclusion was that Jones' chips would do no more than slightly warm a WTC column!

So when I bounced my calculations and conclusions off Jones et al, all he could come up with was the suggestion that there were probably other explosives used in the WTC and the nanothermite chips were maybe just fuses! Thus, after all the fuss about high-tech nano-thermites, we are back to good-old 'bombs in the buildings' as the answer to how the buildings were destroyed."

First off, that wasn't all Jones could come up with. In a recent post regarding this debate on 911blogger.com Jones highlighted how he informed Greening that during the ignition of the material iron-rich spheres were formed, such as would be expected during a thermite reaction. He pointed out that the device the chips were heated to only reaches 700°C, but that "the melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C." This is evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction and was basically already addressed in the paper, which notes that the samples ignited at about 430ºC.

Greening also argued that, "The microspheres reported in the Harrit paper could at best be described as 'iron-rich', with Al, Si and O always present. But let me remind you, this is also true for the magnetically separated microspheres found in incinerator ashes – they contain mostly Fe, Al, Si, and O."

Jones replied with more information from the paper, "Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper."

Greening then admitted to some error on that point. He also seemed to agree that the materials could not be primer paint used on the WTC.

Jones next pointed out that he never stated thermate alone could bring down the Towers, he states:

During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the "super-thermite matches" described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date.

But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips. Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver, in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel, the sequence beginning near where the planes went in for the Towers and computer-controlled, so that the destruction wave would proceed via explosives in top-down sequence. Thus, this was no conventional (bottom first) controlled demolition, agreeing on this with B. Blanchard, but I never claimed it was! (For the Towers; the demolition of WTC7 appears to be bottom-first and more conventional.) The top-down destruction of the Towers in this model would doubtless require more explosives than would a conventional controlled demolition. Thermate (an incendiary, not an explosive) is not the 'be all and end all' explanation (FG’s terminology), nor did I ever claim it was – I have consistently pointed to evidence that explosives were used in bringing down the Towers.

The "working hypothesis" above is a scientific hypothesis, that is, subject to change as further research data emerge. It is also possible (for example) that explosive nanothermite (not an incendiary) could have been used in SHAPED CHARGES, to cut through steel explosively (a use suggested in Fig. 1 of Miziolek AW, "Nanoenergetics: an emerging technology area of national importance." Amptiac Spring 2002; 6(1): 43-48. Available from: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf ."

As the Rock Creek Free Press pointed out in their bombshell article Scientists Find Explosives in World Trade Center Dust:

The authors avoided describing the material as 'explosive' because the flakes studied are too small to assess the bulk properties of the material.

To test the power of this thermitic material, small samples were heated in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, a very sensitive device for detecting the heat generated by a chemical reaction. The samples ignited at about 430ºC and generated as much or more heat than an equal mass of high explosive such as TNT.

When Kevin Ryan was asked if the materials were explosive, he stated, "They can be made quite explosive, in fact they have been referred to as high explosives."

This is a fact...

Aluminothermic Technology - Existence of High-Tech Metal-Based Explosives

Dr. Greening also tried to argue that the materials didn't have the correct physical structure for nano-thermite, but Steven Jones corrected him, "The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point."

The literature that Jones refers to is once again something that can be found in the paper itself, at footnote 19 the authors quote a report by Gash et al. dated April 2000 which states, "Nanostructured composites are multicomponent materials in which at least one of the component phases has one or more dimensions (length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm."

The chips also have the correct chemical composition. As Jim Hoffman recently pointed out regarding the structure and composition of the chips:

The particles are very small: the plates being only about 40 nanometers thick, and the grains are only about 100 nanometers in diameter. The particles are highly uniform in size and shape. The particles are intimately mixed in a highly consistent composition throughout the material.

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Dr. Greening has in fact used ridiculous explanations akin to this in the past when he claimed that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires!

Dr. Jones brings us the bottom line:

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, 'is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?' If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands."

Might I add, if this happens, then wait for the response!

So yes Scootle, the debunking is quite lax these days, but our foes claim it's because there's "not much out there," except Dr. Greening kicking so much butt in his exchange with Jones, that "Jones shouldn't be sitting down anytime soon." Did I mention this guy hypothesized that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires?!

Related info and some of the stuff that is going on out there:

Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton

NYC CAN Update: Now 40,000 signatures

9/11 Survivor Janette MacKinlay Makes an Appeal for a New Investigation Into 9/11

41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

General Richard Myers Asked About Nanothermite Explosives Found in WTC Dust

Debunking the Rebunking

"If we start debunking rebunking 9-11 debunking, where will it all end?" - Pat Curley

Pat Curley over at the Screw Loose Change blog had a listen to our recent interview with Michael Woolsey of 9-11 Visibility and has attempted rebunking our debunking.

Pat states, "They say that they are not interested in hearing debunking of Steven Jones' latest paper (Active Thermitic Material...). Nope, if we are going to debunk that laughable attempt to claim that bits of red paint and rust amount to Thermite we have to do it with a peer-reviewed paper."

Yes, if you are claiming that highly credentialed scientists have been fooled by paint, after two years of research, when paint was one of the very first considerations, then you should back that claim up in the way they have backed up theirs. When the lead author of the paper, associate professor of chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, Dr. Niels H. Harrit, was asked during an interview on Denmark television if he was in any doubt that the material was present, he replied unambiguously, "You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite."

If you think this author/or co-author of nearly 60 peer reviewed scientific papers is fudging, or was fooled by paint, someone on your side should demonstrate this beyond the blogosphere. I think physics professor Dr. Steven E. Jones put it best when he noted that:

Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

Getting back to paint being one of the very first considerations, it's worthy to note that one of the first things indicating the materials were not paint chips was their explosiveness! At the Boston 9/11 Conference on 12/15/07 Steven Jones first reported his findings, stating:

Many red chips I found in the WTC dust, last June I started noticing these. Their attracted by a magnet, a thought came, well maybe it's just paint. It's hard to get thermite to ignite, and I finally thought, how can we tell if this is thermite or not?... It has the right chemical signature.

A friend of mine has an oxyacetylene torch with a very fine tip, he uses it for repairing eyeglasses, and so I had him pass it over one of these red chips... And it flamed, it flashed, as he passed over it.

He went on to state that this, in conjunction with the chemical signature and the red color, was a strong indication that this was indeed a form of thermite.

During a debate with architect Richard Gage 9/11 "debunker" Mark Roberts also suggested the red chips were paint, after Gage replied, "That's why they're extremely explosive I suppose," Roberts conveniently ignored him, stating, "These chips... One thing that should ring a bell, is that they look exactly like all the primer paint that's on the structural steel."

Of course Robert's assumption has nothing on empirical evidence. In a recent interview with Dr. Harriet conducted by national Emmy nominee and regional Emmy award-winning investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe, he notes that, "In the primer paint, which was used on the steel beams at the original World Trade Center – we looked up the original recipes for those paints. The paints contained as an anti-corrosive: chromium and zinc, which we do not find. And magnesium, which we do not see either. These are negative indications why the red-gray chips are not paint."

More detailed analysis can be found in Harrit's article "WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT."

Also of note is the fact that, as Jim Hoffman of the website 9/11 Research points out, "Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate."

The next part of Pat's supposed rebunking involved my mentioning of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) of August 6, 2001, which he pointed out I did misspeak of and call a PDF. Here's a PDF of the PDB! Speaking of nitpicking masquerading as debunking, I also spoke of "outward" bowing columns instead of "inward," and I called a reviewer of the nano-thermite paper an author. Just like with the PDB, I knew it was inward, and I knew he wasn't an author.

Pat states, "Note in particular that the two paragraphs which do not appear historical in nature are also not very accurate in predicting 9-11; federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."

One commenter by the name of Brian Good on Pat's blog thanked him for his candor, "Thanks, Pat, for confirming that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo actually did warn of new attacks, though Condi claimed under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows that it did not."

Condi's bio on Wikipedia also contains this tidbit:

Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting."[45] Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America."[46]

Yes, there was a section that mentions "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," and no, "the attacks were not done with explosives," meaning of course that it wasn't a bombing attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but the memo also mentioned "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..." It then mentions that this included "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," to which Pat points out that the Towers were not federal buildings, but the "recent surveillance" would be in addition to the "most attractive terrorist target" at the WTC as detailed by several reports dating back to the 1980s.

Bottom line is, bin Laden, NYC, and hijackings are mentioned. And as OilEmpire.us points out:

In 1995, the US stopped plans for "Project Bojinka," a planned terror attack on commercial airliners (12 planes were to be hijacked simultaneously, and the plotters also envisioned driving a jet into CIA headquarters in Virginia). Bojinka was thwarted when a group of Islamic terrorists were apprehended in the Philippines. This proves that the Cheney administration lied after 9/11 when they claimed they didn't forsee the possibility of hijacked planes being used as weapons.

Of course this brought up the issue of how this all corresponds with the idea of 9/11 being an inside job. As I have pointed out before, many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey.

In a post from today entitled "Was Popular Mechanics Fair?" Pat tries to make the case that Popular Mechanics did not set up straw men in the way I suggested, he states, "Overall, I'd say that Popular Mechanics did a pretty good job. Most of the theories they discussed are quite common in the movement, and the less common ones were mostly at the end."

I suggest Jim Hoffman's essay "Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man" written in 2005.

Related Info:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

Viewers See History Channel 9/11 Special As Straw Man Hit Piece

Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Sibel Edmonds: In Congress We Trust...NOT

9/11 Truthers or Twoofers? You Decide...

By: FaithMichaels and John-Michael P. Talboo

Ever since people started questioning the facts about 9/11 they have encountered huge resistance from others. It is almost like people do not want to know the truth. It is like they are angry at us for not just swallowing down the official story and going along. They seem to be very upset that we dared to say "wait a minute" the story you are telling me does not match the evidence on the scene, or their own recorded facts of the incident. The official explanation does not add up when one starts looking at scientific and historical facts. The official government 9/11 committee's "facts" do not match a vast number of experts in the field; experts like architects, engineers, firefighters, and people who do demolition for a living. The 9/11 truthers have been insulted with repeated ad hominem attacks, told to go and take our medications, verbally threatened, called conspiracy nuts, kooks, etc. and cussed at.

Recently, Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley compiled various videos made by "debunkers" in an attempt to showcase their lack of lack of eloquence, venomous nature, and dependence on a priori objections and fallacious arguments. Sadly, and hilariously, they didn't get it. Upon finding and reposting Stewart's video, Pat Curley, of the "debunking" blog Screw Loose Change, commented that, "The best part is that the guy who put it together is a Troofer!" Of course "troofer," or "twoofer" is a derogatory term akin to calling someone a conspiracy nut, so right off the bat, Pat had proven Stewart's point! Instead of denouncing the people in the video for their lack of intelligent discourse, or proclaiming them to be the lowest common denominator of the "debunking" world, they were instead proud. The calls in the video for people to "put a bullet to their head" and "just kill yourself please" were not even decried. No, these people were apparently considered brethren of the highest order.

Surely Pat did not think it was funny when British man Kevin Whitrick hung himself live on the internet with 100 chatroom users watching, with one commenting “Fucking do it. Get on with it.” Who is to say some disturbed person doesn't take the advice offered in the "debunking" video? Granted, these are very different scenarios, but telling people that they should kill themselves isn't funny, or admirable, period.

After being shown that his video had been posted on the Screw Loose Change blog Stewart noted that, "They don't even get that the video is mocking them! One guy even posted that I don't understand irony. Don't that beat all!"

None of this is to say that members of the 9/11 truth movement, or this blog, always conduct themselves in the most saintly of ways. However, there is a difference between the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, and having one's modus operandi consist of flinging around insults. To put it another way, how many hundreds of "troofers" equals one "fuck you"?

After all, we are all conspiracy theorists when it comes to this issue, this fact is solidly demonstrated in the introduction to Professor David Ray Griffin's book, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", in an essay entitled, Conspiracy Theories, General, Rational, and Irrational. It is pointed out for instance that when Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive, began his essay Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already by stating:

"Here's what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. Members of the Bush Administration ordered it, not

Osama bin Laden. Arab hijackers may not have done the deed... [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives.... I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories."

He did not have a paragraph saying:

Here's what the government's conspiracists believe: 19 hijackers with box-cutters defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history. Hani Hanjour who could barely fly a Piper Cub, flew an astounding trajectory to crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon, the most well-protected building on earth. Other hijacker pilots, by flying planes into two buildings of the World Trade Center, caused three of them to collapse straight down, totally, and at virtually free-fall speed.... I'm amazed at how many people give credence to these theories."

We have been told that the "burden of proof" is on our side. Yet no matter how many testimonies we provide, no matter how much evidence we collect, no matter how many documentaries are made showing that people in power KNEW months and even years before , or how many "smoking guns" are collected, compiled and presented , 9/11 Truthers are still told " it is not enough evidence." OK, then how much evidence do we need and what kind of evidence would matter? There is more than enough evidence to raise reasonable doubt here already. People have been arrested and thrown in jail on far less facts than these. Guantanamo Bay was full of people who were arrested, kept in prison and tortured on way less evidence than what has been collected from 9/11 families and truthers. Murder cases have been thrown out of court and known rapists have walked free, on way less reasonable doubt evidence than what 9/11 truthers have put together. People have been convicted and sentenced to death and executed on way less evidence than the 9/11 truthers have collected. So again we ask: how much evidence will be enough to open a new 9/11 investigation? The people who verbally attack us, harass us, stalk us through-out the internet, will not tell us the answer to that question. It seems that all they have as an answer is to name call and try to cast doubt as to our sanity. What they are trying to do is cast doubt as to our credibility. Indeed that seems to be ALL they have to work with.

The people who question our sanity, our patriotism, etc. are the ones foaming at the mouth, spitting in your face, getting in your face, pointing fingers, using foul language, name calling, character assassinating and trying to push a person beyond any normal human tolerance level with actions and language that would test and sorely try the patience of even Mother Teresa.

These people behave like cyber bullies. They come to our blog site, YouTube channel, read?, and leave childish and foul profane insults. They behave in a complete out of control manner and appear to be people with deep anger issues. They speak as if they have no morals, no ethics, no home training, no compassion, and seem unable to have an intelligent fact-filled debate, or leave a sane comment.

All we have ever said is that there is enough evidence that counters the official story to open a new 9/11 investigation. One would have thought that we had asked for something sociably reprehensible and unforgivable.

These cyber bullies crawled out from under whatever cyber rock they were hiding and commenced to demonize, harass, and internet stalk anyone who dared to question our government's official party line.

They have been soooo dedicated to this demonizing, that one can't help but to wonder about THEIR sanity. Or to wonder; who are these people and if they are a tool of the government propaganda machine? They can't be "normal people" "normal people" do not behave this way, do they? Is this what happens to everybody who dares to question?

Look back in history; how many times have people been rejected and tormented by the "public perception of the world of the times" and official government ideology of the times"? Many of these people are well known. The name list includes; Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.

Were our Founding Fathers called kooks, insane, etc. by the people of their times? What say you Mark Twain?

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

History has proven the above named people correct, and we believe that history will also prove the 9/11 truthers to be correct as well. We believe that it will show the 9/11 truthers to be true patriots, who helped to keep the Founding Fathers dream of this Republic and the people's dream of freedom and liberty alive and well for our children's children to enjoy.

History will show the governmental propaganda, party-line, fanatics to be just that, fanatics and spin-doctor propaganda people, that attempted to hide and distort the truth.

If you care about this country, if you just want to shut us truthers up, then give us a new investigation into 9/11. Of course Pat Curley of the ScrewLooseChange blog doesn't think it will result in us calling it a day, as he states, "the problem with the 'we just want a new investigation' people" is that, "Any new investigation will come to virtually the same conclusions as the original investigations, and the Troofers will yell "coverup" again. There may be some minor changes; a new investigation might come down a little harder on Bush and Tenet, but of course that will not be enough to satisfy 99% of the movement."

However, if we were to have a new investigation into 9/11 and the Bush administration by a panel of independent, non-government appointed experts, as opposed to the Bush administration investigating itself, we are positive his figure of 99% is a farce.

After all, the investigation was compromised with Executive Director Philip Zelikow having "deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II administrations." Not to mention the fact that he had co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, was a part of the Bush II transition team, participated in White House briefings on al-Qaeda in 2000 and 2001, and sat on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

According to an unnamed source on the Commission Zelikow was "calling the shots" and "skewing the investigation and running it his own way." If these are not the epitome of a conflict of interest, then we are truly living in a comic book bizzaro world.

Even one of the first commission members, Max Cleland, resigned and called the investigation a "white wash."

We believe the only reason the government would not support and help institute a new independent investigation, is that they fear there is a strong possibility that the truthers have a lot of things correct regarding the happenings on 9/11.

If you are new to this please research both sides of this matter for yourself. If it is more research than you want to do/or is overwhelming and TMI, consider this: If the governments official explanation of 9/11 is the "truth" then the Bush administration at best is guilty of gross negligence; at worst it is guilty of treason and war-crimes. Perhaps it was Bush and his administration, or a rogue element within our government that needs to be exposed and rendered incapable of enabling and enacting these human atrocities ever again, perhaps none of the above, but we need a new 9/11 investigation to find out.

Pat can rest assured that we are not as concerned about being right as he thinks we are however, as the semi-serious book "The A-Z of Conspiracy Theories by Kate Tuckett" points out:

Of course, one can argue that obsession with conspiracy theories serves only to demonstrate the lunatic paranoia running rife in the twentieth century. Much talk about conspiracies is dismissed as paranoia and much of it is paranoia. But in reality, history has proved all too well that politicians lie, presidents lie and bureaucrats lie. Almost everyone lies to a degree. If we continue to be gullible and believe everything that is presented to us, the truth never comes out. It becomes not only interesting and revealing but an absolute priority to question authority and question the authoritarians.

Related Info:

Truther.org

Meet The Truthers

Truther Long Before It Was Cool

Give us a new Independent Investigation

9/11 Debate: Jon Gold V.S. Pat Curley

911truth.org
Wednesday, November 26 2008 - 9/11 A/V Galleries

The following videos are a debate between 9/11 Activist Jon Gold and Pat Curley the creator of the popular blog ScrewLooseChange.

The debate took place on Monday, November 24th, 2008 on the Franklin Pierce University closed circuit television show, The Dynamic Duo and was moderated by the show's hosts Justin Martell and Eric Jackman.

The only editing that has been done to the three segments is all references to commercials have been removed (to make the conversation continuous), along with the opening and closing credits. The content of the debate has not been altered in any way.

FP-TV's The Dynamic Duo is in no way affiliated with the GCN Radio Network show of the same name.









Related:

'Debunker' Related Excerpts from and Review of '9/11 Truther The Fight for Peace, Justice and Accountability' by Jon Gold

Debunking the Debunkers search results: Pat Curley