Sunday, October 31, 2010

A Response from Ryan Owens

Sorry I've been away for a while everyone. My computer's been broken for about three weeks. But it's fixed now and I'm back to doing what I do best: Debunk the debunkers.

A few months back I sent my open letter to debunker Ryan Owens. Within a few weeks he responded back. Here's his full response with my comments added. Ryan has given me full permission to use this email in any way I want.

(My comments in red, and also links.)


Well this thing surely turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected (nearly 8 pages), which is why it took so long to finally get back to you. Right off the bat, I'll admit that there were some things in the letter you were correct about, like information about WTC7 being based on early hypotheses which later turned out to be incorrect, which I plan to make a note of in the videos with one of the little bubble box things as soon as I figure out how to do that and get a chance to. But for about 95% of the things you said, it seemed to me like you were just repeating the same old 9/11 truther speaking points when they try to "debunk the debunkers". Given the fact that, as we will see, you did not respond to the full 100% of my letter, I don't see that as being a fair or accurate statement. I tried not to sound like too much of a dick in my responses, And you didn't . I have dealt with those sorts of people before. You are not one of them. but some of the things were just too ridiculous. Anyway, here's the letter. Feel free to use any quotes from it (or the whole thing) however you want. And I will.

9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition not Possible

Claim 1: Concerning the puffs of air being ejected several floors below the pancaking floors, this is something I DO address IN the video. The floor slabs extended across the open office space areas, but there was a massive core in each tower which contained three stairwells, over a dozen elevator shafts, and numerous air shafts for ventilation throughout the building. This accounts for the puffs of air several stories below the actual pancaking floor slabs. Furthermore, actual controlled demolitions set of their explosives BEFORE the building begins to collapse (since, of course, it is the explosives that CAUSE the collapse). In fact, some of these ejections have been shown to occur before the collapse here and here. The fact that 100% of the puffs of air you refer to are seen only AFTER the collapse has clearly already started proves that the collapse caused the puffs, the puffs didn't cause the collapse. As I have shown, this is incorrect. Finally, remember that not a single one of the video cameras recorded the resulting tremendous explosion that would had been clearly audible if these puffs of air were indeed explosions. If the explosions were continuous and rapid, then distinct explosions would have been nearly impossible to hear.
Only a percentage of the concrete per floor pulverized, with that percentage growing greater and greater the further into the collapse. Additionally, much of the dust was composed not only of pulverized concrete but also by the pulverized drywall. NIST's collapse theory is not contradicted by this, it merely demonstrates a misunderstanding among most 9/11 truthers of what NIST's collapse theory IS.
A few things you did not address:
1) Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers. And 2) David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.

Claim 2: There are no squibs "shooting" out of the north side of Building 7. This is the clearest video of what you refer to, so your readers can watch for themselves:

What I see are a series of windows breaking due to the stress as the outer shell of WTC7 begins to descend downward. The outward rush of air caused by the descending shell then pushes the intense smoke with had filled every floor at that point out through those broken windows. According to NIST, there were only fires mainly on the lower floors, not the upper ones. And according to the FEMA report: “Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was supposed to be filled with firestopping material.”
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the smoke from the lower floors could have traveled up to the upper floors.

I see no flashes of light indicating an explosion, nor did any of the video cameras pick up any tremendously deafening explosions which would have been picked up if these were indeed explosions. Furthermore, whether you believe that these are breaking windows or "squibs", we can both agree that they occur near the TOP of the building (about 10 floors from the roof), whereas we can also agree that the building began collapsing from the BOTTOM. So what would possibly be the reason for setting off explosions near the roof when the collapse initiates from the base? Perhaps to weaken the building throughout, as is done in other demolitions. In this video, explosions can be seen going off at the upper sections even after the building has started to fall.

Claim 3: Where do I begin? With regards to the many videos in and around Ground Zero following the collapses in which random explosions are heard... well, duh, that's because stuff was exploding! The collapses damaged underground gas lines, setting off random explosions all throughout the day. Hundreds of vehicles were also set on fire, setting off random explosions. An explosion in the pile AFTER the collapses of the towers (or literally hours and hours before the collapse of WTC7) is not evidence of explosive charges placed inside the buildings. I have shown this to be wrong. Kevin McPadden, the only person claiming to have heard explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7, was a well-known 9/11 truther who gave speeches at rallies and never once made any mention of having heard explosions prior to the collapse of WTC7. He only "remembered" this detail and began making the claim in September 2007, a full 6 years after 9/11! He is also contradicted by the many firefighters who say that they never heard any explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7 as well as the many video cameras which were present and recording at the exact intersection where McPadden claims to have been standing, in which no explosions are heard.
If you hear an explosion in the NBC video of WTC7's collapse, then you are making yourself hear something which is not there. I am not making myself hear anything. I can clearly here loud booms occurring right before the collapse. Even just a single explosion needed to sever even one column in WTC7would have created an audio level of about 140 dB at a distance of half a mile, equivalent to the audio level created by a jet engine. Here, you are using NIST's strawman argument, assuming that RDX, which produces those sound levels, was the only explosive that could have been used. There are other substances, such as incendiaries, that could have been used. It's worth pointing out that very few of the prominent controlled demolition advocates have ever suggested that RDX alone was used. Why you and NIST would rule out demolition based on this argument is puzzling. But the fact remains is that the "sounds" are not what defines an explosion. Also, remember that this would be only one explosion, whereas controlled demolitions traditionally use hundreds of explosives. The video of 1WTC's collapse, in which you claim explosions are heard, contains nothing of the sort. The constant "crashing" sound is the normal sound of the building collapsing. What should a collapsing 110 story skyscraper sound like? You are missing the point in that sounds consistent with demolition can be heard, something you and other debunkers have said did not occur. Should it not make any sound at all? Also, the roaring/crashing sound is heard only AFTER the building begins to collapse. If this were controlled demolition, you would hear sharp - BANG, BANG, BANG - sounds, following by the collapse of the building. If these were traditional demolitions, I would agree. But if these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, then they would obviously be modified. The video PROVES that there AREN'T any such explosions. No, it does not.

I note that here you completely ignored Claim 4, which is your video's assertion that explosives would have left behind remnants such as det cord. I clearly demonstrated that Brent Blanchard and yourself are incorrect about this assertion, and I still recommend you put a disclaimer in your video.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

Claim 1: Don't understand your reasoning. The upper section did tilt 23 degrees to the east, but the floor slabs of the floors below pancaked pretty much straight downward. The core of the South Tower had neither its north or west columns. If the top tilted to the east, we would expect at least the west columns to survive.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist

I'm glad you don't believe Flight 77's pilot, Charles Burlingame, was in some way in on 9/11. I'm also aware that not every 9/11 truther has the exact same beliefs about 9/11 as every other 9/11 truther. In fact, I'm sure no two 9/11 truthers have the exact same beliefs. In my videos I don't say that all 9/11 truthers believe in the particular claim being debunked. I'm just saying, "Here is a theory, and now here's why it's false." I'm also well aware that not all 9/11 truthers believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, but I still have videos debunking this theory because there are plenty 9/11 truthers who DO believe this. And I happen to think those are some of your better videos. The theories about Burlingame somehow being involved in 9/11 were put forth by Loose Change 2nd Edition, which was reportedly the most viewed internet video at one point, so surely a lot of people knew of this theory even if not all of them believed it. It would still help if you added some sort of disclaimer to make clear that few truthers believe that theory.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

Claim 1: Correct, the original WTC7 was 350 feet from the North Tower, not "less than 300 feet" as I said in the video. If I remember correctly, when I was making the video I used the distance bar on a satellite photo of Ground Zero post-9/11 via Google Maps, which it turns out is not the most accurate technique. At the time I also assumed the southern edge of the original WTC7 was perfectly flush with the edge of the Vesey Street sidewalk as the new WTC7 is, but it turns out that the original building was pushed back (northward) about 20-30 feet to allow for the loading docks. However, whether 300 feet or 350 feet, this is still nothing with compared to the vertical height of the North Tower (1368 feet). The horizontal distance between the buildings was only about 1/4th the height of the tower. Though to be fair, most of the large debris appeared to be heading towards building 7 when the North Tower was at about half its original height. For comparison, we know that debris from the North Tower fell as far away as to crush the eastern edge of the Winter Gardens, which is about 500 feet away. Yes, and why was this debris flung so far? Still, I will add a message in the video saying it should be 350 feet.

Claims 2, 3, and 4: I made and uploaded this video in September 2007, which was over a year before the official investigation had released its final report. Hence, everything in the video was based off of NIST's working hypothesis at that time. The investigation found that the diesel generators did not help to feed the fires and that it was the failure of Column 79, not Truss 1, which initiated the collapse. Also, the report does not say that the structural damage to the building played no role in the events leading to WTC7's collapse, it found that it played only a minor role. They did say, however, that the building would have collapsed even with no structural damage. However none of these three findings by the investigation changed the overall hypothesis for the collapse as presented in their early reports and in the video. Yes, the hypothesis of fire, which was the only hypothesis they seriously looked into. Still, I'll note either in the video or in the description that the video was made several years ago and based on the findings at the time.

9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained

Claim 1: I usually don't like to just tell people "Read the report", since most of them won't bother to, but this is such a complicated area that you really need to at least just read the section of the official report dealing with the temperature simulations and how they calculated the temperature of the fires. It was different on every floor. It was also different as time passed. Hydrocarbon fires can burn as hot as over 2000 degrees F, but NIST calculated that based on the available oxygen entering the building, the fires in the hottest parts of the building were generally burning at about 1832 degrees F. This was also backed up based on analysis of steel beams in WTC7 by FEMA that showed that they maximum temperature they had reached was 1832 degrees F. Interesting that you would bring this up. You are referring to the eutectic steel. You have such strong faith in NIST's calculations, and yet this steel actually contradicts NIST's WTC7 report more than it supports NIST's report on the Towers. After all, nowhere in NIST's WTC7 report do they claim that any of the steel in Building 7 was heated to 1800F. At most, they claim the steel in Building 7 was heated to about 1250F. So, the WTC7 steel may support the WTC collapse report, but it raises more problems for the Building 7 report. In any case, I cannot say how accurate NIST's calculations are until they release their modeling data for peer review. Of course, this beam was from WTC7 (not the Twin Towers), but the fires in the towers and WTC7 were very similar and fed by the same material, the same type of normal office contents. My key point is that the maximum temperatures for the fires would have been about 1832F. But I have seen no empirical evidence to support the assertion that the fires in the South Tower were that hot only minutes before its collapse. The page you linked to completely misrepresents NIST (or at the least, misleads the reader). The fires in the towers took place over 8 floors in 1WTC and 6 floors in 2WTC. That's 14 floors and literally hundreds of columns and hundreds of floor trusses. The hottest zones in the towers were at the floor trusses (IE, the ceilings, remember heat rises), not the core columns or perimeter columns. NIST was only able to analyze core and perimeter columns. They weren't able to test the floor trusses I THINK because they needed to actually test the paint and the floor trusses were not painted. In any case, details about the temperatures the columns reached tell us nothing about the temperatures the floor trusses reached. Regardless, any speculation that the trusses were heated far hotter than the core or perimeter columns is just that-- pure speculation backed by no empirical evidence.

Claim 2: This is grasping at straws when you consider than the color of any metal is going to vary with the lighting even if the temperature remains the same, True, but the picture I reference shows the south side more in shadow than the other sides, meaning that less natural light would have altered the color. and also there are dozens of videos showing the molten metal, and at many angles the molten metal is even a much darker orange. Also true, but the fact remains that the metal clearly did attain this high temperature at some point. Molten aluminum should not remain that bright for very long.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained

Claim 1: See above.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition

Claim 1: Not always but generally. The reason no flashes are seen in that video is because the demolition team wrapped heavy protection around the blast zones to prevent the explosives from sending debris flying. Regardless, flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. You should still add a disclaimer that bright flashes do not have to occur for it to be a demolition. Flashes in the South Tower's collapse have been found. You ignore the deafening explosions in that video. No, I don't. As I've shown, explosions are present in videos of the Tower collapses.

Claim 2-4: See above.

Claim 5: Wrong, it leans exactly as it starts to collapse. No, it doesn't. Also, something I don't even see you truthers talk about is why you think the buildings leaned AT ALL. The fires in the South Tower at the moment of collapse were on the east side of the building, and the building leaned to the east when it started to collapse. A controlled demolition would have caused a straight down symetrical collapse, with nothing to cause such a sharp lean. So by your standards, this must not be a controlled demolition. Even if for some unfathomable reason it would have caused a lean, the odds of it just "coincidentally" leaning in the exact direction where the fires were is 1 in 4. But wait, the exact same thing happened in the North Tower. The fires at the time of collapse were on the south side of the building, and the building leans to the south as it collapses. The odds of this happening by coincidence: 1 in 4. The odds of it happening in both towers in 1 in 4 multiplied by 1 in 4, or 1 in 16. Unless they were engineered to do that, much like how the demolitions would had to have started near where the planes impacted the buildings.

Claim 5: The antenna falls at exactly the same time as the rest of the building, even in that video. Again, the antenna does rotate south at one point, but the initial motion was entirely vertical and happened before the main collapse. Also, the fact that huge sections (as much as 70 stories tall) NIST says 60 stories for WTC1 and 40 for WTC2. of the North Tower's core remained standing for about 20 seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed proves that the core did not fall first. This assertion relies on the idea that the core would start to fail at the bottom like a conventional demolition. However, the demolition clearly had to start at the top, meaning that only the upper part of the core had to fail for the antenna to fail first.

Claim 6: See above.

Claim 7: Agreed 100%. But the claim that the buildings fell at or near free-fall acceleration is one of the KEYSTONE claims of the 9/11 truth movement, it's even 1 of the top 10 claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Many argue that explosives were placed on every column on every floor, which caused a free-fall collapse. Of course, this is completely ridiculous and even if you wanted to take a building down in a controlled demolition, you wouldn't need to put explosives on every single column and on every floor. So, their ideas about how controlled demolitions work is laughable in the first place, but the point of my video is to prove that they didn't fall at free-fall anyway. That's fine, but my main point was that you explicetly state in your video that explosives "would have caused the buildings to collapse at free fall speed." I showed this to be most likely incorrect. Basically, you should think about rephrasing that particular comment.

Claim 8: Again, the claim that the buildings fell into their own footprints is one of THE LEADING claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The point of my video was to prove that none of the buildings fell even remotely into their own footprints. That may apply to the Towers, but to claim that Building 7 did not "even fall remotely into" its footprint is stretching the truth, don't you think? Panels from the North Tower radiated outwards as far as 600 feet outside the building's footprint. Yes, and why were they flung that far? 30 W. Broadway, which was entirely across the street from WTC7, was so badly damaged by debris from WTC7 that it had to be demolished. "Entirely across the street" makes it sound like it was blocks away. As I said before, the fact that Building 7 damaged other buildings was probably due to the fact that it was a very large building. A building the size of WTC7 would never have been legally demolished with explosives with neighboring buildings that close, hence why they are demolishing the Deutsche Bank Building beam by beam. Only within the past couple months did they start constructing the new 30 W. Broadway.

9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven

The video was made in December 2007 (and was actually just an updated version of the one I'd made about 6 months prior), which was based on a 204 page/slide PowerPoint presentation that Steven Jones had been giving, when he was still claiming it was thermate. In that presentation he wasn't talking about microspheres or red chips at all, it was all about thermate and chemicals found in the dust. This is simply wrong. Dr. Jones has, to the best of my knowledge, always talked about the iron spheres when discussing his thermite hypotheses. He certainly was discussing them at the Rebuilding America's Senses event, a clip of which you show at the beginning of your video. In his slide presentations, he discusses the spheres in great detail.

It was only later that he changed his version of the truth (for the third time) and started talking about nanothermite and microspheres (which, by the way, form completely naturally in ordinary office fires and the EPA had already released a lengthy report explaining the microspheres in December 2003, literally years and years before Jones had ever even heard of them). The EPA actually discussed using the spheres as one of the signature components to distinguish WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust).
By that time I felt no need to keep making videos debunking every new version of the truth that Steven Jones came up with. First, it was thermite (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was thermate!" (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was nanothermite!" Even more recently, he seems to have changed his story yet AGAIN and now claims that it was traditional explosives all along, and if nanothermite was involved at all then it was just to be used as a detonator to set off the explosives (which, by the way, it a completely ridiculous theory since there are already detonators for explosives which work perfectly well and reliably and there would be no need to invent "nanothermite detonators"... but, that's Steven Jones for ya). This sort of nonsensical criticism has already been thoroughly addressed.
None of this changes the fact that the current information in your video is incorrect. Your claims about thermate have long been debunked, and I highly recommend that you either add disclaimers to your video or remove it entirely. I also recommend you look at this, regarding your criticism of the nanothermite discovery.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel

Claim 1: Ugh, sorry to be blunt but please tell me you're joking. You're basically saying that the reason the molten metal was still molten 6 weeks later is because the thermite/thermate continued to burn for 6 weeks. No. What I claim, or rather, what the peer reviewed scientific article claims, is that there was an abundance of odd chemicals and chemical reactions occuring at Ground Zero which lasted for weeks because the chemicals were largely present and continued to reacte. This is outlined in this video at minute 6:52. In one of my videos I show that the amount of molten metal flowing from the South Tower in the final 7 minutes before its collapse can be estimated at about 30 tons, which would require 60 tons of thermite, which is equivalent to about 10 full dump truck loads of thermite. The idea of sneaking that much thermite onto one office floor with no one noticing is so absurd that anyone seriously entertaining the idea that the molten material flowing from the South Tower is molten iron from thermite should have their sanity card revoked. Right. Because it sounds tricky to do, we can just throw out the theory entirely. Gotcha. But wait, this is only one building. You say molten steel was found below all three buildings. For both towers and WTC7, it would require, say, 180 tons or 30 full dump trucks of thermite! And this is 180 tons of thermite for a 7 minute burn. Now if you want to go so far as to say that the burn lasted not for 7 minutes but for 6 WEEKS... then this calculates out to not 180 tons of thermite but 1,555,200 tons of thermite! Equivalent to about 259,200 full dump truck loads of thermite! I defy you to sneak even ONE dump truck load of thermite into the World Trade Center (or any other office building). Again, I recommend that you actually read the enviromental anomalies paper.

Claim 2: Oxidize does NOT mean vaporize! Oxidation of lead will start at normal room temperatures. Yes, but it has to boil before it oxidizes. And lead does not boil until temperatures of 3180F. And RJ Lee made it clear in their 2003 report that they talked about temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5) And temperatures high enough to melt steel or iron were recorded in the debris.

Claim 3: See above.

Claim 4: Glowing does not mean molten. Yes, but if a metal such as copper or aluminum were glowing that bright it would be completely liquid. Anyway there's no question there was molten metal in the debris pile (aluminum, lead, and copper were all abundant in the debris pile and all have melting points at or below the range of fires known to exist in the pile). But as I already pointed out, because the molten metal remained glowing for as long as it did, it indicates it was a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and high heat capacity, which is not the characteristic of any of the metals you mentioned. Even if the flakes falling from the glowing beam were molten (meaning, liquid) as opposed to glowing embers, that doesn't automatically indicate that it was molten steel. It does if the other metals are ruled out.

Claim 5: As stated above, copper and lead were also present through the complex (used in pipes and wiring and other electrical devices). But they do not have the heat conductivity/capacity characteristcs I mentioned.

9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim

Claim 1: It is from the FEMA report and I'll point out in the video NIST's estimation.

Claim 2: See above.

Claim 3: When I show examples of those steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire, I didn't claim they were skyscrapers! I even say that the Kader Toy Factory collapses were all 4-story buildings, and I certainly don't imply that the Dogwood Elementary School was a skyscraper. I never stated that you claimed they were skyscrapers. I simply pointed out that you compare them to the Towers, which is obviously misleading. How would the partial collapse of the Windsor Building possibly support your side? The link I provided should have clarified that. The building was designed differently than the WTC in that it had a concrete core from the bottom of the building all the way to the roof and concrete floor columns up to around the 21st floor. Only the top 11 floors had a steel-frame, and that was only the FLOORS (meaning the office space, not including the core which was concrete). All 11 of these steel-framed floors collapsed to the ground from fire. The only part of the building that didn't collapse was the concrete core and the bottom 21 concrete floors. Fire affects steel differently than concrete. 100% of the Windsor Building which had a steel-frame design collapsed. 100% of the World Trade Center had a steel-frame.
You laughably attack us debunkers for not comparing the World Trade Center to other fires in skyscrapers which did not collapse. Maybe the reason we don't compare the WTC to these other skyscraper fires is as simple as this: Of every single other skyscraper fire (you know, the ones you truthers love to talk about), not a single one of them had a hijacked 767 crash into them. True, but the fires are blamed more for the collapses than the damage. Nearly all of them were also made of concrete and not a steel-frame like the WTC. Wrong. The One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate Bank were in fact tube-within-tube steel-framed designs like the Towers were, although not quite the same. Even WTC7, although not hit by a plane, was completely different than these other fires in that it had a steel-frame, it was designed completely differently than these other buildings, it no sprinklers working to suppress the fires, and it was abandoned by the FDNY and allowed to burn unchecked for 7 hours (whereas most other high-rise fires had firefighters in the building fighting the fires). If you would bother to read what NIST said about the fires in WTC7 (yes, I have read much of the WTC7 report), then you would see that NIST claims that “[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.” Ultimately, NIST says the fires in other steel-framed buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC7. They claim the crucial differences had to do with differences in design, but this has already been found to be problematic as well.
We don't compare the WTC to these other buildings because they are nothing alike, and you shouldn't either. So you apparently think it's okay to compare the Towers to elementary schools and badly built toy factories? Just because they collapsed from fire? Sorry, but until I see an example of a steel framed skyscraper totally collapsing from fire, I think I have good reason to compare the WTC skyscrapers with other skyscrapers.
Lastly, I would just like to point out that even if an event is the first time in history that it's happened, that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to ever happen. In 1912, for the first time in history a luxury liner sank after hitting an iceberg. In 1937, for the first time in history a passenger airship burst into flames while in the air. In 1969, for the first time in history man walked on the moon. In 2003, for the first time in history a Space Shuttle exploded on reentry into the atmosphere due to damage to its heat shield. In 2008, for the first time in history the United States elected its first African-American president. Just because something happens "for the first time in history", that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen. True, but one must look at the bigger picture in these matters. Say, for example, three Titanic-like ships, all designed to cope well in extreme situations, all sank after all three had hit icebergs within hours of each other. Three ships all sinking for the same reason within a few hours. If that had happened in 1912, I'm sure most people would find that incredibly suspicious and very well could have caused people to cry "conspiracy."

9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact

Claim 1: Leslie Robertson passionately rejects this claim by the Port Authority. Even if it were true, which it may well be, the towers on 9/11 DID survive the plane impacts. The stripping of the fireproofing and the long-term fires were another matter entirely. Oh and you conveniently left off that part from the NIST report which expresses doubt over which of the speeds was considered. I am fully aware of NIST's doubt, but I have yet to see any pre-9/11 documentation showing that the speeds considered were really 180mph. But I have seen plenty of pre-9/11 material saying otherwise.

Claim 3: Again, the towers did remain standing after the planes hit. Still, your argument is obviously misleading.

Claim 4: When you truthers quote John Skilling, you always leave off the most important part of his quote: "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." He was still considering it being an accident, not a plane being deliberately crashed into the building at full speed with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. But, he clearly stated that he fires were taken into account. Also, your claim about Robertson being the cheif engineer is still wrong. Skilling was clearly the head engineer.

9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires

Claim 1: I don't know if this is 9/11 truthers' attempt at a straw-man argument or just a complete misunderstanding of what the official explanation for what the collapse is, but the NIST report says that the jet fuel burned off within the first 10 minutes and had, essentially, nothing to do with the fires in the buildings. The jet fuel acted like a match: It started the fires, but then the jet fuel itself burned off almost immediately, leaving normal office fires to burn, much like a match lighting a fireplace. The jet fuel was gone in 10 minutes, yet the fires in 1WTC burned for 102 minutes! 7WTC did not have one drop of jet fuel in it at any point, and yet it burned out of control for nearly 7 hours. What I pointed out, however, is that your citation of NIST saying that 70% of the fuel remained in the Towers is wrong, and that they clarify this much more accurately in NCSTAR 1-5F. They even go as far as saying that half the fuel in the buildings did not even stay within the imapct points and that it flowed away from were the planes hit. So you should clearly rethink your statements about how much fuel was in the Towers, as they obviously played a role in how the fires were spread throughout the buildings.
9/11 truthers very commonly assume that the fires were fed entirely (or mostly) by jet fuel, when in fact the official report makes it clear that the jet fuel had very little to do with anything. And in the case of WTC7, it had nothing to do with anything. I never claim jet fuel was the only source of fuel for the fires. What I claim is that you are cleary wrong about how much fuel was in the Towers.

Claim 2: This claim is better addressed by NYPD videographer Steve Spak who, in the documentary "The Truth Behind the Third Tower", responding to Richard Gage's claim that the smoke pouring out of WTC7 was actually being drawn over to WTC7's south side from WTC6, says that that's absurd and that he was there on the scene that day and that the smoke was clearly coming FROM WTC7. It then cuts to a video clearly showing the smoke coming out of WTC7, not being drawn TO WTC7 and then rising up its side. I'm sorry, but pictures and videos show that clearly the same thing happened to WTC1 (minute 11:43).


Mr. Owens, I hope you will take these points into consideration and keep your promise.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

TIME Magazine Fail

I Know the Truth, So Don't Bother Me With Facts

"Global warming is a hoax! Climate change, like autism, is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon. Oh, and President Obama was born in Kenya. These, at least, are some of the core beliefs in aluminum foil hat land — the place black helicopters are always approaching to impose one-world government, and death panels are always forming to shut off grandma's oxygen."

Lol! Apparently a 'core belief' in 'aluminum foil hat land' is the belief that 'climate change is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon'. Ok ... hands up ... who started that one?!

Well I don't believe in this 'core belief'. Climate change is primarily caused by natural variability, vaccines don't cause climate change but they do 'result in' a host of health problems, and are less effective at protecting you than natural vitamins, and man probably has visited the moon, which apparently is covered in water and a network of undergound habitable tunnels.

Sometimes you have to laugh at how they like to ridicule anything that challenges the establishment by lumping it all together. I question the official story of 9/11 so I must therefore believe Elvis, who is actually an alien, crashed his flying saucer into the Pentagon.

Also, I would really like to know who came up with the 'tin foil hat' stereotype ... it may have been the Simpsons... or they made it popular at least.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up

October 27, 2010

Listen to an overbearing gatekeeper, Jon Faine, attempt to rubbish the genuine concerns of an Australian trades unionist, Kevin Bracken, in an attempt to stifle any debate about the many anomalies in the official 9/11 story.

Seldom have I heard anyone, who obviously wants the issue to go away, do more to attract attention to it. He did this during a phone-in on the publicly-owned Australian Broadcasting Commission's 774 ABC Melbourne radio station.

A small amount of sound editing was necessary, but the integrity of the conversation was retained. The unedited sound file of the conversation can be found on this Internet page.

The following web page has more background.

Trades Hall president Kevin Bracken stands by his 9/11 conspiracy

Related Info:

Who is Really "Stupid and Wrong": Key Ideas and Evidence Concerning 911 that Prove the Attacks involved Inside Help. (911 Truth Debate in Australia)

Polls show broad skepticism among Americans of official 9/11 narrative

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Commentary on Mystery Of The Urinal Deuce (Commentary)

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted this video today:

Here are decent responses published at and at the time.

This episode aired in late 2006, so this commentary is most likely from awhile back as well. I have to wonder if South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have come to realize that haphazardly choosing to feature on a t-shirt in the episode to show people how "goofy and dumb" they think 9/11 truth advocates are was a complete back-fire.

I really don't think they knew they were calling these people retards:

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

But I'm sure plenty of other people found out!

Here is a first hand account of how the show back-fired from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale, who at first was also suckered in by the pseudo-skepticism of Popular Mechanics, but who unlike Trey and Matt, researched his way past initial perceptions and cognitive dissonance and emerged a true skeptic!
When I was a young teenager going through secondary school, I was very supportive of the scientific establishment. I was strongly anti-religious, I was pro-globalism, and I genuinely believed the only way to make poverty history was to genocide everyone living in poverty and start again! In the summer of 2007, as I was about to start a university course on the wonders of data-mining, I watched an episode of South Park that completely changed my life. It was called "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" and it was a parody of 9/11 truth. Although the episode was basically a hitpiece, the writers inserted enough points in there to spark my interest in the subject.

Unlike most people however, I took a more neutral approach. I read the Popular Mechanics debunking piece quite early on and at first I fell for it as it seemed very authoritative and credible. When I did deeper research however, I realised that the piece was nothing more than propaganda. It was full of strawman arguments, ad-hominem attacks, arguments of ignorance/incredulity and appeals to authority. The biggest shock I got from studying 9/11 was the revelation that scientists lie! I never really trusted the government or the media, so I had no problem coming to terms with the idea that they were lying about 9/11, but I was very naive when it came to the scientific community. I always thought of it as as an open forum, free from political motivation, religious persecution and corporate control, where anyone can voice their dissent and put forward alternative theories. Oh, how wrong I was!

Scootle The Anti-Skeptic
It is important to note regarding the Popular Mechanics debate that is referenced in the commentary that many in the 9/11 truth movement pleaded with the producers of Democracy Now to bring on more formidable opponents who do not support all of the claims made in Loose Change.

Related Info:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief Washington, DC

The NORAD Papers--NORAD's Mission To Monitor and Control Territorial Airspace on 9/11

Multiple Explosions at the WTC site.

Looking through the newly released batch of videos from NIST and I found some interesting stuff in the folder "Richard Peskin." I have a edited together bits from four of the clips in that folder where you can hear what sound like explosions (after both towers have fallen), and the videographer (presumably Richard Peskin) saying that he's heard even more.

It has been speculated that the explosive demolition of WTC7 was supposed to be timed with, or shortly after, the fall of the towers. It is possible the explosions on the tape, some occurring at 11am, well after the collapses, are related to this endeavour.

Debunkers will argue that the explosive noises are only associated with the Tower collapses. This is not proven. This evidence leaves open the possibility that these noises may be coming from within building 7. Remember, Barry Jennings, a survivor who had been trapped inside WTC7 stated that there were explosions going on inside WTC7 over an extended period of time and that he was only rescued after the second tower had fallen.

These explosions refute debunker claims that there were no loud explosive-type noises that one could associate with a controlled demolition.

Related Info:

New 9/11 Footage Reveals WTC 7 Explosions

NIST Cumulus Video - Sounds (and Reports) of Explosions

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - A detailed look

Monday, October 25, 2010

Pat Curley Claims to Find Strawmen, but Only Exposes His Failed Logic and Poor Research

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted the following video by Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth today:

Pat states:

Steven Jones tackles two objections to his "research" that I have never heard before:

1. That somebody contaminated the samples with nanothermite. Huh? No, Steven, we don't think there's really nanosupercallifragilisticexpiallythermite in the samples at all.

2. Perhaps the falling buildings just generated the nanothermite. Err, see my response above.

Pat is tricky with this first one, because although he has never outright claimed the samples were contaminated, he has implied it. As noted by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale in his post "Crazy Conspiracy Theories":

I've just listened to the debate between Dylan and Pat and I got rather annoyed when Pat and the host were crticizing the purity of the dust samples and the chain of custody etc. and Pat was talking about how the samples weren't kept in sealed bags or whatever. The thing is, Steven Jones wouldn't even need to be doing this if the officials had done so. You can criticize his work all you want but its still better than anything the government has done. Organisations like USGS and RJ Lee etc probably do have professionally collected sealed samples, so why can't we have open access to study them? Will we find red chips in them? We know USGS were covering up the existance of Molybdenum rich spherules so who knows what else they are covering up. Besides, the whole issue is irrelevent anyway. Because it's not as if these highly engineered thermitic red chips are easy to make or get a hold of. By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

And the material is super-duper! ;)

The reason Jones brings up the fact that the buildings did not create the nano-thermite chips is because 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank 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!

Pat states, "And it's interesting to hear that the Waterboy is trying to make nanothermite himself."

Yes, it is interesting to know that Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, whom you call waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory, is a skilled enough chemist to create nano-thermite! You act as if he worked installing water coolers in office buildings!

Here is a 26 picture slide show Ryan produced, half of the images are nano-thermite residues and half are materials extracted from WTC dust samples. Can you tell us which ones are which, Pat?

One of Pat's regular commenters "Billman" states:
Pfft, wow. Such hypocracy from this guy.

So now he's saying the samples couldn't have been tainted with super-thermite... but when they are given to another independent researcher who DID NOT get any evidence of unreacted thermite, it was "ZOMG! The gubmint tampered with mah sampelz!!"
This bunkum is refuted here.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Who is Really "Stupid and Wrong": Key Ideas and Evidence Concerning 911 that Prove the Attacks involved Inside Help. (911 Truth Debate in Australia)

A letter sent to Australian media:

Recently the President of the Trades Hall Council and Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, Kevin Bracken, telephoned into a local radio program that was discussing the Australian troop deployment to Afghanistan. Mr Bracken aired the implicit view that, in terms of the deployment's role in "stopping terrorism", we should be mindful that our commitment was, from the outset, completely unnecessary. His argument follows that we are fighting an unnecessary war because the attacks of 911 were orchestrated by a conspiracy originating closer to home, that Osama Bin Laden was merely a patsy.

Predictably, when this matter was raised in the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, quickly responded by characterising Mr Bracken's opinions as "stupid and wrong". However, when we compare the US Government's official story regarding 911 with the hard evidence relating to the World Trade Centre attacks we can quickly determine that the only people who are wrong here are those who back the official story.

There are four main points of physical evidence revealed in the destruction of the World Trade Centre Buildings that provide smoking gun physical evidence that completely undermines the official account; that fires caused the "collapses" of these structures:

Point One. The destruction of the Twin Towers, and World Trade Centre 7, exhibited features that were not at all consistent with a gravitational collapse. In fact these features can only be reasonably described as the products of explosive forces. World Trade Centre Building 7 in particular raises a huge red flag. Designed, like the towers, to withstand earthquakes, fires, and hurricanes, with only minor damage, and not hit by an aeroplane, this structure collapses in a manner identical to a controlled demolition seven hours after the disintegration of the Towers at 5:20pm. The collapse here defies the Laws of physics save for the use of explosives that would allow for such a rapid demise.

Point Two. Despite the building fires being too weak to melt structural steel there is ample evidence showing the melting of steel during and after the building destruction. The phenomena of melted steel is an impossible occurrence under the observed fire conditions witnessed in the buildings and can only have resulted from the presence of chemical incendiary (superhot burning) devices.

Point Three. Investigations by independent scientists showed the signature of the chemical incendiary THERMATE in multiple dust samples (and also upon a previously melted section of steel frame). The amount of material present in the dust samples indicated that many tons must have been used and provided clear evidence of foul play.

Point Four. In the last few years an international team of researchers looking into the WTC dust found high tech explosive particles (nano-thermite chips) in every sample collected. This military grade product, found in quantities that also indicated many tons were present, cannot be explained in any conventional way. This was the final nail in the coffin of the official story that fires had caused the World Trade Centre building collapses.

These four points of forensic proof indicate an attempt had been made at deceptively demolishing these three buildings. The deception was only partly successful.

The immediate question following this evidence is how could so many tons of explosive and incendiary materials be brought into these buildings ? At this point no one can surely say except to point out that the evidence is, nevertheless, there. One thing we do know is that an elevator modernisation program was underway in the Towers during the months leading up to the attacks providing plenty of opportunity to thoroughly rig these structures.

So what about the official investigations ? When it came to conducting the scientific "investigations" into the building collapses the FEMA and NIST studies basically ignored or whitewashed these obvious signs of inside work. In fact the "separate" investigations consisted of the same people who had connections & contracts to the US military. Some of these individuals even had connections to nano-thermite (explosive) research !

When we look at 911 from an objective stand point it is obvious that the attacks involved a large degree of inside help and that a cover-up was, and still is, in operation. The problem with successfully communicating this information to those who remain skeptical are twofold:

1. There is a strong reluctance by people, who have been psychologically conditioned to accept the official account, to take a second look at any evidence that interferes with their established views (and this includes the Australian Prime Minister), and

2. There are numerous liars in the US corporate media and Government who will try to keep a lid on anything that greatly rocks the establishment. They'll censor or deride all attempts at having a reasonable debate on this matter and push false counter claims to the truth evidence (debunking) so as to mislead the public.

In terms of the Australian experience involving our own terrorism "experts", the academics and bureaucrats who brief our media and the Government also appear to either not recognise the truth or deliberately go along with the lie.

On the other hand, our intelligence heads at the ONA and ASIS, who should be less susceptible to deception than others, almost certainly recognise the truth and more than likely push the lie about 911 to those not in the know. Their mission, like that of the CIA, is to "play the game" and protect strategic and corporate interests. The 911 lie is simply too big to let out of the bag, the repercussions for the shadowy intelligence community being too great.

In the middle of this mess is the Australian media's inability to report on such matters. Our investigative journalists, who should have been more curious and critical of the official 911 story, seem to be as misled as the general population.

The time has passed to gloss over the "conspiracy theories" concerning the 911 attacks. When we are talking about having our troops remain in Afghanistan, potentially for up to 10 more years, we need to be honest with ourselves and not trumpet the false belief that we are preventing more terror attacks like 911. That assertion is plainly ridiculous.

Anyone who engages in enough research can determine who is telling the truth about 911, either the US Government or independent researchers. The fact is that Australian troops arrived in Afghanistan under mistaken pretenses and now we have to decide whether they should stay for humanitarian reasons or withdraw.

Please visit these vital 911 truth sites and make a reasoned judgement on what to believe: Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 911Blogger, and (for counter-disinformation) Debunking the Debunkers Blog [Google them].

Please vote!

Herald Sun Poll: 65% Agree that the Official 9/11 Story does not Stand up to Scientific Scrutiny

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Australian Union President, Kevin Bracken – A True Working Class Hero!

Defending The 9/11 Truth Tellers

Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

"Jacque Fresco Exposed" Debunked

Well, I made a few videos and was persuaded to post them so I will. They are debunkings of a guy named PeterWhitlock on Youtube. The videos are about The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement, if you haven't heard of either of them, you can watch the documentary "Zeitgeist: Addendum":

or go to their websites:

Basically, they propose a Resource-Based Economy where there is no money and technology is used to it's highest potential. Anyway, if you want to find out more, simply go to their websites, as for now, here are the videos:

Related Info:

Conspiracy "Science" Debunked!

Friday, October 15, 2010

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Debunking Young Debunka

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog pointed out today that Kevin Barrett's son has a blog called Debunking Dad. As I've pointed out before, I disagree with Barret on many issues, but on this one I'm gonna go with pops. Pat singles out the post "Free-Fall Fallacy," where Barret's son (AKA Young Debunka) states:

"Note how he says three buildings, making it clear that he is talking about the Twin Towers as well as Building 7 (which had its core collapse before the outer wall did). The debris we see in the videos are clearly falling faster than the building."

Pat says this is "Good, solid, honest thinking." Yeah, well so is the post "Debunking the Debunkers' Free Fall Fallacies" by our young debunka AdamT., who demonstrates that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that all three WTC towers on 9/11 fell in time intervals consistent with a demolition.

Some of the commenters at Screw Loose Change were wondering if it was definitely Barret's son. It appears that it is.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

What's Up With "Building What?"?

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog recently asked some questions about the status of the "BuildingWhat?" campaign, he states:

Building Wut is still at $88,009. Hasn't budged in about 10 days, and they haven't begged again on Flogger. Wut's up with that?

Who's going on vacation with the Building Wut donations?
Here are the answers from an October 10th email:

Dear Friends,

Together we have raised $90,000 in less than two months. Thank you for your generosity and incredible determination. Now our hard work and commitment are about to pay off.

For the last two weeks we have been negotiating to get the biggest bang for our buck. Because of election season, advertising rates are about three times the normal rate, and so we decided to push back the release until immediately after the election when rates are rock bottom.

As the deal stands now, the ad will be viewed almost 5 million times, and 500,000 New Yorkers will see it an average of 8 times each. It will run on the most popular cable shows and channels including the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, MSNBC and CNN, as well as a dozen smaller channels.

The contract will be finalized by the end of the week, at which time we will announce the exact dates the ad will be aired.

Thank you so much for your patience and support.

The BuildingWhat? Team

Related Info:

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself.

Building What? is up...

There Are No 9/11 Whistleblowers If You Claim They Are All Confused or Lying

First a little background from the film Loose Change Final Cut:

This story has received new life recently after the Pentagon bought and destroyed 10,000 copies of a book, "Operation Dark Heart," written by Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, prompting an editorial published at Investors Business Daily to ask:

"Why would the Pentagon buy and destroy copies of a book by a former Army intelligence officer? Could it be perhaps because it contained information on how the 9/11 attacks might have been prevented?"

Of course the Screw Loose Change blog wouldn't want Loose Change to be right about anything, so they recently posted a blog attempting to debunk the issue.

James B. of the blog asserted that:

...The whole point of the project was that it was supposed to be a data mining project of open sources. So all the troofers have to do to prove this story true is point out where Atta showed up in the press prior to 9/11 and how this somehow connected him to a terrorist cell.
But the project did not rely on open sources alone, as the article on the subject on Wikipedia states:

The program used data mining techniques to associate open source information with classified information in an attempt to make associations between individual members of terrorist groups as part of its original "intelligence preparation of the battlespace". The objective of this particular project was to ascertain whether the data mining techniques and open source material were effective tools in determining terrorist activities...[7][8]

A recent article by Jon Gold also makes this clear, he writes:

If you don't know, Able Danger was a military unit set up by the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in late 1998. It was tasked with collecting "huge amounts of data in a technique called "data mining." They get information from such sources as al-Qaeda Internet chat rooms, news accounts, web sites, and financial records. Using sophisticated software, they compare this with government records such as visa applications by foreign tourists, to find any correlations and depict these visually." The information would then be used to "conduct real operations against al-Qaeda targets."
The following excerpt from the Fox News article "Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta" makes it clear that Atta was not identified by open source material alone:

J.D. Smith, a defense contractor who claims he worked on the technical side of the unit, code-named "Able Danger"... said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.

"I am absolutely positive that he [Atta] was on our chart among other pictures and ties that we were doing mainly based upon [terror] cells in New York City," Smith said.

The Wikipedia article states the following of the other witnesses who support the claims about Atta:

The Defense Department announced its findings on September 1, 2005, after a three-week investigation into Able Danger. The statement announced the discovery of three other witnesses in addition to Shaffer and Phillpott who confirm Able Danger had produced a chart that "either mentioned Atta by name as an al-Qaeda operative [and/or] showed his photograph." Four of the five witnesses remember the photo on the chart. The fifth remembers only Atta being cited by name. The Pentagon describes the witnesses as "credible" but stated that the document which allegedly mentioned Atta could not be found.[32][33]

In debunker land all of these witnesses are just confused, or lying like former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds.

I endorse the NYC CAN campaign and support the need for a new, independent, investigation of the events and failures that lead up to the 9/11 attacks.

The original 9/11 Commission inquiry became an exercise in bureaucratic ass-covering and obfuscation of accountability.

I had no intention of joining the ranks of “whistle blowers”. In 2003, when I made my disclosure to the 9/11 commission regarding the existence of a pre 9/11 offensive counter-terrorism operation that had discovered several of the 9/11 terrorists a full year before the 9/11 attacks my intention was to simply tell the truth, and fulfill my oath of office.

Unfortunately, this was a minority view.

Instead of supporting the search for the truth, members of the Bush/Rumsfeld Department of Defense did everything within their power to destroy my 20 year career as a clandestine intelligence operative simply to try to discredit me and my disclosure.

In 2006 I testified before Congress on the pre-9/11 issues regarding the systemic failures I was personally aware of – in both open and closed sessions – and yet nothing was ever done to correct these problems.

The families and victims of the 9/11 attacks are owed a real accounting of why their government failed them. We all deserve answers.

The full accounting has never been made. This accounting is long overdue. I hope the NYC CAN effort will result in a real, detailed, independent investigation that will reveal the full truth – whatever that truth may be.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer

Related Info:

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings

Able Danger Round-up

9/11 Coverup: Judge Napolitano interviews Col, Anthony Shaffer and Michael Scheuer

But if 9/11 was a "conspiracy", people would have talked!

Tuesday, October 12, 2010


September 10, 2010

Brand new track Produced by Red Skull taken from the highly anticipated album Soundtrack To The Struggle by Lowkey.
Follow his progress on

Related Info:

Voices Of The Voiceless - LowKey & Immortal Technique


Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

What I usually think of when I visit JREF...

Related Info:

The neverending incredulity of JREFers

What We Believe According to JREFers

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.

How NWO shills are compromised ...

"Attorney Steven Eggleston was suspicious when his boss pressed him to attend a weekend male retreat, but refused to tell him what would be happening there, saying participants were sworn to secrecy.

So he did a Google search and found out why.

Men would be holding hands and walking naked, blindfolded, through a forest. Then they would sit nude in groups of 30 to 50, passing around a wooden dildo and giving lurid details of their sexual history. Eggleston said he found out that the men will grab each other's penises if they wish.

Eggleston didn't like what he read and refused the invitation. Now he's suing the firm and his bosses, saying he was badgered, yelled at and ultimately had his pay slashed to zero for not attending the retreat ..."

Full Story

Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get some judge, who accepted his invitation, to reject the suit.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Debunking Screw Loose Change: The Movie

A detailed rebuttal to the film Screw Loose Change- Not Freakin' Again Edition.
Note: This critique only addresses the WTC, as many issues about the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the hijackers are geniuely misrepresented in Loose Change.

Related Info:

Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries