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

Why Do People Believe Stupid Things? - BFP Roundtable #04

From the official story of 9/11 to the drug war narrative to Omidyar's hope and change, people allow themselves to believe the most transparent lies and propaganda. But why? On this edition of the BFP roundtable, James Corbett, Guillermo Jimenez and Sibel Edmonds ask (and attempt to answer) the question of why people believe stupid things.



_______________________________________________

A really great discussion dealing with the issue of independently using logic and referring to hard evidence in the face of official (or mainstream) rhetoric.

The problem is that the majority of people assume most of the things they know via a 'consensus', or authority-derived, view rather than really understanding (ie working out for themselves) where their information comes from. Even highly intelligent people are as much trapped in the psychological world of mainstream opinion as everyone else. The clip also mentions the fact that there are professional faux-independent authority-figure liars out there that help hoodwink the public.**

In this situation obvious evidence can be overlooked or blithely dismissed by people to favour an existing world view, even washing over basic common sense principles. More often than not many  do not have enough spare time, or drive, to really discover the truth behind contested matters - which is compounded by a lack of imagination in realising the importance of finding the real facts when it comes to critical issues.

And although there can be varying levels of 'accepted wisdom', depending upon your level of education, intellectual aptitude or life-based experience, there is still the problem of people falling into a ridged world view that only reluctantly accepts new ideas - more often rejecting new information, even if backed by strong evidence, in favour of what they already 'know'.

Furthermore, critical thinking is unpopular. There are many examples in history where the few who have pointed to the problems faced by society were rejected only to be lauded years later as being 'ahead of their time'.

It is because people do not think too deeply, being only concerned with their immediate surroundings and not wanting to rock the social boat, that criminals in positions of power can get away with all manner of poorly executed deceptions. In the end most people cannot fathom what is happening in the wider world and are at a loss when the consequences come home to impact them - like banker caused financial crises and unnecessary wars for geopolitical advantage.

Watching videos such as the one above will help provide you with vital information, allowing you to be more self aware and more discerning, so that you will not become an unaware victim of heinous trickery. It helps to have an open minded curiosity with enough imagination to recognise independent thoughts or ideas. Share this clip with your friends!

**This is one of many good points raised in the clip - the fact that some, or perhaps many, allegedly independent defenders of the consensus, or authority-derived view, notably those who are part of 'Skeptics' organisations, like Michael Shermer (mentioned in the clip), are seemingly professional liars. Some people have a hard time contemplating this fact - that the level of deliberate lying to the public is more sophisticated than they have imagined.

A reminder that Boiling Frogs Post is having a fund raiser. Donate what you can !

Michael Shermer the Pseudo Skeptical Propagandist

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.

More Debunking the Debunkers blog posts relating to Shermer.

Related:

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):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fww1AduLo1s&bpctr=1555511011 

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i64tQXEmgpc

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:

http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2008/09/911-debate-richard-gage-verses-michael.html

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:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement 

Logical fallacies of NIST

Thermite Denial - A Year in Review

ScootleRoyale
Skeptic Denialism

Debunkers, man-made global warming advocates and skeptics in general like to call their opponents "deniers". This word has of course been deliberately chosen because of its holocaust connotations. It's interesting though because in many ways it is they who are the deniers. In May of 2009, I coined the term "thermite denier" as an alternative name for 9/11 debunkers. And considering how blatantly obvious it is that high-tech thermite played a role in the destruction of the World Trade Center, and how deeply deluded you would have to be not to see it, I think the name is more than justified.

It has now been exactly a year since the publishing of the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", and over the past year the debunkers have gone through all kinds of mental gymnastics to convince themselves that we are wrong.

The most common debunker response is the claim that the red material is simply primer paint. Such criticism is completely ignorant of simple facts about the material. There are a few basic reasons why the chips are unlikely to be paint. For one thing, they do not contain Zinc in any significant amount. They also do not dissolve in paint solvent and do not soften when heated. When a 1mm x 1mm chip was heated using an oxy-acetylene torch (see first video below), it flashed brightly and ejected a hot particle. Various paint samples were also heated using the torch and they simply turned to ash.

There are also a number of much more conclusive reasons why the material cannot be anything other than a high-tech explosive...

1. The particles are on the nanoscale. The bright particles below are consistently 100 nanometers in size and are seen intermixed with plate-like particles 40 nanometers thick.



2. They're intimately mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components.



3. When heated to around 400-450°C, the chips ignite and undergo an energetic chemical reaction.



4. Upon ignition, molten iron spheres form on the surface. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, the trigger temperature of around 400-450°C could not possibly melt the iron. The fact that we see these spheres implies a temperature increase of more than 1000°C during the reaction.



5. The material is potentially more explosive than TNT and RDX.



Below are two videos of chip ignitions ...



Another common criticism relates to the chain of custody of the samples. Debunkers try to cast doubt on Jones' findings by pointing out that his samples weren't professionally handled or hermetically sealed, as they would be in a real forensic investigation. While this is true, it's not as if the government has done any better. We're doing what the government should have done. We shouldn't even have to be doing this. You can criticise Jones' methods all you want but it's still better than anything the government has done.

There were four samples used in the study, one of which was collected minutes after the second tower collapsed, before any cleanup work began. This sample contained red chips and iron microspheres in it just like the others, destroying a tired old debunker claim that the samples could have been contaminated by cleanup work.

Also when one understands just how advanced this thermitic material is, the idea that it could have been added to the samples is ludicrous. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan can't even make this stuff! There are only a handful of military labs in the world that can make nano-aluminium, one of the key ingredients of the material. And because of the way the particles are intimately mixed, the nanothermite could not have been made by simply crushing ordinary thermite into extremely fine particles - a top-down approach. The nanothermite, like all nanotechnology, is manufactured using a bottom-up approach - building it up molecule by molecule in the same way skyscrapers are built up beam by beam. So again, we're talking about a very sophisticated manufacturing process. There's no way this could have been made by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement and added to the samples.

The mental gymnastics that debunkers go through would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. In order to convince themselves that there is no conspiracy surrounding 9/11, they come up with an entirely baseless and even more ludicrous conspiracy theory of their own. They effectively accuse ordinary citizens and scientists of fabricating evidence, even though those citizens and scientists have nothing to gain from doing so and physically couldn't even if they wanted to, yet they find the idea of a corrupt government fabricating evidence ridiculous! I think it's they who need the tin foil hats to be honest!



Another point I have heard raised is the fact that Jones only has four samples - peanuts compared to the total amount of dust produced. Interestingly though, that fact actually supports our side if you think about it. When you consider the enormous amount of dust produced in total, if there was only a small amount of this stuff in the towers, the probability of it appearing in Jones' relatively tiny samples would be equivalent to the probability of taking a small sample of hay from a haystack the size of a city and finding one of the few needles hidden in the giant haystack in that small sample. The fact that we find this thermitic material in not just one of the samples, but in all four, suggests this stuff was everywhere.

Regardless of how it was done or who was responsible, just by looking at the hard scientific facts it is obvious to anyone not living in denial what happened to the twin towers on 9/11. They did not collapse due to damage and fire as we have been led to believe, but were in fact demolished using a high-tech explosive. A common response at this point is to try and cast doubt on the demolition theory by asking questions like 'How exactly was this thermite used?', 'How did they get it in the buildings without being seen?', 'How did they stop it from going off when the planes hit?' and 'If the buildings were demolished, where were the bright flashes and loud bangs?'. These are all very good questions that we all would like to know the answer to. But the fact that we don't know exactly how the towers were blown up, doesn't negate the evidence that they were blown up! A criminal investigation will answer those questions. Denying the evidence on the basis of personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, something skeptics are supposed to avoid.

One thing's for sure though, Al-Qaeda didn't blow the towers up!

See also ...

New Video: Evidence

Steven E. Jones in Sacramento, California, April 30, 2009

Niels Harrit - Vortrag über Nanothermit im WTC-Staub

Related Info:

Put up or Shut up: A Year in Review

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

Reply: Jesse The BSer Ventura: I Called It!