Friday, November 26, 2010

Mr Irrational

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog made a post today praising these so-called "sensible conclusions" of a blogger calling himself Mr Rational:

So how can this notion be applied to the 9/11 truth movement? The following is a common example of special pleading (e.g., How can the govt. continue to conceal the conspiracy if literally thousands of people were involved? Special plead: you don’t understand the concept of compartmentalization within the government).

This argument is special pleading because it avoids having to answer the real problem, namely that even with compartmentalization there still remain thousands of people who have to remain silent. Lets take the people who set up the demolition charges for instance. If they were only given instructions to set charges and nothing else, then I find it a little odd that not a single one of them has come forward with this information. The notion of compartmentalization fails when we realize that if one link in the chain fails, then the entire conspiracy fails.

Much of what I'm about to say here is going to be in my post after this one, but since Pat focused in on it, I will as well.

First off, it can't be the fallacy of special pleading because we have unrefuted peer-reviewed science on our side. Therefore, Mr Rational's typical "debunker" a priori objection, according to The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, falls into the category of a priori fallacies because one cannot "base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence."

As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Steve Weathers put it:

"It does not matter what problems we face with other details of the attacks, we KNOW, from the key forensic evidence, that the WTC buildings were brought down using explosives."

The idea that government complicity in the attacks would require large numbers of people with full knowledge of the operation is a notion largely debunked by the intelligence technique of compartmentalization, but does this still leave thousands knowing pieces of the puzzle?

In fact, this assertion is itself using the logical fallacy of necessity where "a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises." One part of the premise here is that controlled demolitions require large numbers of people, which leads to the conclusion that controlled demolitions on 9/11 would require the same.

However, as points out:

"A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."

Beyond this, the intricacies of the evidence indicate a plethora of ways in which the number of people intimately involved in all aspects of the plot could have been significantly decreased, but we'll get there in a second.

The next part of Mr Rational's premise relies on the fallacy of assumption where "someone assumes the very thing they are trying to prove." He simply assumes somebody would have talked in such a conspiracy, and since they haven't there was no conspiracy.

However, as professor David Ray Griffin stated:

...How could one know this? If some big operations have remained secret until now, we, by definition, don’t know about them.

Moreover, we do know about some big operations that were kept secret as long as necessary; such as... the war in Indonesia in 1957 which the United States provoked, participated in, and then kept secret until 1995.

Many more examples could be given.

Another great example is Operation Gladio set up by the CIA and NATO. Although Gladio was eventually exposed, it was not just a single event, but an ongoing operation that remained secret for decades, in which hundreds of innocent people were killed and injured in terrorist attacks that were blamed on other groups.

Now that I've put this claim of fallacy from a three time offender in perspective, let's wrap this thing up.

In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command was combined with deliberate confusion via the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks. But no matter how it might have been achieved, one thing is clear, it would have only required the complicity of a few high level officials.

Pat states that:

"No matter how compartmentalized the work was, there would be a hell of a lot of people who would say, 'You know, I wonder if those weird ceiling tiles I installed at the WTC had anything to do with the collapse.'"

He is referring to Jim Hoffman's hypothetical blasting scenario. If this is how the demolition was carried out the ceiling tiles would not look weird at all.

As Hoffman's website states:

"Explosive devices could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment, such as smoke alarms or ceiling tiles, and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function. Numerous such possibilities are afforded by the properties of energetic materials."

And these numerous possibilities are beyond the hypothetical. Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole recently published a video of experiments he carried out proving that thermite variants, such as were found in samples of WTC dust, can demolish vertically standing steel beams. One possibility hinted at in the video is that nano-thermite was sprayed on or in beams and activated with a micro-detonator. If this were the case, the operation still would not have required large numbers of people as there wouldn't be any need for running miles of det cord through the building. The fact that this could be done unnoticed is evinced by the Citicorp Tower in New York, which underwent a secret structural retrofit that was unknown to the building's tenants and went almost unnoticed by the general public. Furthermore, in 2009 it was reported that drills were successful in planting bombs in ten high-security federal buildings.

Now, why have we not seen any of this small group of operators come forward, well Mr Rational, because that would be irrational!

People rarely do things opposed to their own self interest. Hence, conspirators usually rat on their co-conspirators only to receive lesser sentences. They rarely pop up out of the blue and say, "would you please give me a lethal injection." In fact, with this mass murder, it is likely that many of the operatives have already received one without asking for it! A real investigation into the events of 9/11 is yet to take place. If and when this occurs, the lesser conspirators or accomplices may be granted immunity, or granted favorable plea bargains in return for turning state’s evidence, leading to convictions of numerous others.

With all that being said, it would still be expected that people not directly involved who caught wind of suspicious goings-on would probably talk, and in fact, they have.

As Gregg Roberts, who was one of the authors of the paper that reports to have found nano-thermite in samples of WTC dust, stated to me:

"Some people will never believe us no matter how many tests are run. They wouldn't believe in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center even if Mark Loizeaux produced a signed confession."

Why doesn't the TSA use dogs trained to sniff out explosives?

"a dog can detect dynamite through dirty diapers, or C4 through smelly socks. Whether providing explosives sweeps for a large venue or a smaller security detail, bomb dogs are more economical and effective than other methods of searching. Here are several reasons:"(link to source article is below)
  • Speed -- Dogs can check faster by smell than an Xray machine operator by sight.
  • Instant results -- They detect target odors "in real time" -- no waiting for lab results.
  • Mobility -- Dogs can check out large areas faster than any other method.
  • Versatility -- Explosive detection dogs can detect a wide variety of substances.
  • Precision -- Dogs can discriminate between very similar chemical compounds.
  • Focused -- Dogs can detect target odors in an environment so full of odors that electronic sensors may be compromised.
  • Ability to Find Source -- Only dogs can track chemical vapor to its exact source. No instrumental device is presently capable of doing this.
  • Fewer Breakdowns -- Dogs don't have mechanical failures and can quickly be replaced should the dog be ill or not want to work.
  • No power source required -- Dogs don't require electricity and can work in areas where power is unavailable.
  • Adaptable -- Dogs can check items and areas that won't fit in an Xray machine.
For military patrols throughout the world, a bomb sniffing dog can mean the difference between life and death. These "dogs of war" have saved countless lives and their record for finding hidden explosives has won them a loyal following. The soldiers trust these dogs more than metal detectors and mine sweepers.
Back on the home front, using bomb dogs reduces unnecessary evacuations. Dogs can check out suspicious packages, avoiding the need to call in a bomb squad (unless explosives are found) and reducing expensive company "down time."

Just think no more radiation, no more molestation. The dogs would ensure our safety, our Constitutional rights would be protected.
So why is this not an option?

An article on NPR states that bomb sniffing dogs are deployed to Afghanistan.
They save lives by detecting explosives from homemade bombs.
This is a simple but extremely effective solution for TSA.
Dogs can be trained to detect any kind of explosive.
TSA touches your junk because of the CIA sponsored underwear bomber.
If the underwear bomber had been sniffed by a dog with an explosive trained sniffer..NONE of that trash would ever have happened.
Perhaps that is the point.
It is very difficult to have false flag mini operations that continue the 9/11 terrorism regime agenda lies.....If the dog's nose can just simply put a stop to it.
It's time to bring in the dogs.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Coming Soon to an Airport Near You - Thanks to 9/11

You've heard about the passenger who opted out of a full-body scan (a.k.a. "a virtual strip search") and was subjected to an intrusive and humiliating pat down. "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested," passenger John Tyner told Transportation Security Administration workers in San Diego.

Well, rest easy, John—and other passengers offended by both full-body scans and hands-on searches.

TSA won't touch your junk—or your breasts or buttocks. If they begin to strip search passengers as if they're prison inmates, they'll do just what correctional officers do: They'll make you do all the nasty work.

What follows is an excerpt from a training video for prison guards on how to make sure that inmates aren't hiding contraband.

The video makes for extremely uncomfortable watching and viewer discretion—and outrage—is advised. After all, this may well be the next step in how the TSA, one of the least effective and efficient government agencies of all time, goes about its daily business.

Related Info:

Airport Body Scanners Safe, Experts Say (Ignore those that don't)

The official 9/11 lie used by TSA as a reason to abuse children, women, and the handicapped

Even Ron Jeremy Thinks Airport Body Scanners Are Ridiculous!

Two Questions Answered About the Naked Body Scanners


The CIA gave the Christmas Underwear Terrorist A Visa for our Country???

The Christmas Underwear Terrorist

Airport Body Scanners Safe, Experts Say (Ignore those that don't)

Airport Body Scanners Safe, Experts Say

... Yeh ... I heard Corexit is safe too ... and depleted uranium ... and the swine flu vaccine ... and the 9/18/2001 ground zero air ...

Of course, one body scan isn't gonna kill you ... it's a cumulative thing. If you're a frequent flier and you go through a body scanner every time you fly for several years, it's gonna mount up.

... all in the name of keeping you safe from the brown, bearded bogeymen.

Stuck in the Left-Right Paradigm...

Huffingtonpost has written an article about Andrew Napolitano revealing himself to be a truther, and the majority of comments on the article are supportive of 9/11 truth. One comment however that wasn't was this one.

Here's where 9/11 conspiracy theory breaks down for me as a practical matter: the planning for the attacks didn't start the week or the month before. They started years before, when the Democrats held the White House, and were carried out when the Republicans held the White House.

Can you imagine a conversation by members of the Clinton/Bush transition team that starts with a Clinton official saying, "You should be aware of some attacks we're planning to carry out against ourselves that will kill thousands of our own people, destroy government buildings and wreck our economy. But on the bright side, it will give you the excuse to launch some wars, pass unpopular legislation and use it as a political weapon against us."?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

These sort of responses are typical of people still stuck in the false 'Left-Right Paradigm'. When I first told one of my University housemates a couple of years ago that I believed 9/11 was a conspiracy, her response was something like, "I don't think it was, because if it was the democrats would be talking about it". In another case, I had a much more heated debate with another friend online one time, and after like an hour of arguing about all kinds of things from vaccines to laetrile to global warming to globalization, and being compared to a creationist (which, funnily enough, is what got me interested in the evolution debate), I asked him, "Let's say I prove to you the world trade center was blown up ... who would you think did it?", his reponse was, "The right wing of the US ... Easy."

But to anyone who has done even a little research into 9/11, it is obviously a lot more than just a republican thing, much more even than just an American thing. The current Vice President, Joe Biden certainly has some questions to answer, and is clearly an accomplice in the coverup. The Clintons are also accomplices after the fact, at the very least. Then of course you have global media outlets like the BBC - Orwell's ministry of truth - who have consciously lied to support official story on several occasions[1] [2], and were probably fed scripts on the day itself.

Thinking of 9/11 as purely a conspiracy among puppet politicians is silly. The conversation the commenter wanted me to imagine probably took place around a table in some dark smokey room, with aload of shadowy suited men that noone has ever heard of sat round, and the newly elected Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Condi etc. sat at the end, following a screening of a high definition video of the JFK assassination from an angle noone's ever seen before!

I can't prove who did 9/11, but I can prove that there is a conspiracy among politicians and the media, on both the left and the right, all over the world - and among Quasi-governmental academic institutions - to keep the truth covered up. Considering all that, an obvious question to ask is, who's pulling all these people's strings? It wasn't just a right-wing American conspiracy, it was, and still is, an international intelligence operation.

Strangely enough though, the most committed critics of 9/11 truth, the so-called 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' crowd - like those JREFers, tend to identify themselves with the left more than the right.

9/11 truth is not a left-right issue, it's an anti-establishment issue. That's why it is attacked by both sides of the false paradigm and attacked even more by those 'rational' minds with unquestioning devotion to said establishment. But it appears the mainstream media is beginning to wake up. Unfortunately - and rather frustratingly - much like with the climate change issue, it seems the only mainstream news outlets who ever give the dissenting view any fair coverage are the two that are the most widely ridiculed - the Daily Mail and now Fox News.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asserted yesterday that Geraldo Rivera wouldn't be so impressed by the 1,300+ Architects and Engineers of if he knew "about the swimming pool engineer or the HVAC engineer or the dental engineer who thinks it was done with beam weapons from space." The so-called "swimming pool engineer" is Don Meserlian, who held a professional engineer's license "for more than 30 years." To achieve a P.E. licence Imagineering E-zine notes that one must pass several exams:

The first exam, Fundamentals of Engineering, covers mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering sciences. The second exam, Principles and Practice of Engineering, requires the applicant to solve engineering problems in his discipline plus problems in four other disciplines. The difficulty of these tests have been equated to passing ten final exams on the same day. The data covered on the tests requires the applicant to draw upon knowledge that has been accumulated over an entire college and professional career.
So when Pat calls him a "swimming pool engineer" he is grossly misrepresenting his credentials, just as he does when he calls Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, a waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory. And most of the members of AE911Tuth don't hold implausible ideas about the Tower's destruction. Pat of course ignores the fact that as of May 6th of this year over 40 structural engineers and 60 aerospace engineers had joined the ranks of ae911truth.

It must also be pointed out that any architects and engineers that 9/11"debunkers" deem unfit are more than compensated for by the over 10,000 other signatories of the AE911Truth petition, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

Of course not even having a licence just one step down from being the "most highly qualified person at the blasting site" and working for a company named Controlled Demolition Incorporated, for whom one placed hundreds of explosive charges at the world's largest structure implosion by volume, makes somebody an explosives expert as far as "debunkers" are concerned!

One of Pat's regular commenters "GuitarBill" makes the argument that AE911Truth only represents 0.23% of the the US scientific and engineering community based on a number of 600,000.

First off, he only bases this figure off the number of architects and engineers who have signed the petition, ignoring the other credentialed signatories. This figure also ignores other 9/11 truth groups with large numbers of credentialed people signed on to their ideas such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Of course there is some overlap and I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make, but it would make one. Regardless, and most importantly, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information, as the "BuildingWhat?" campaign has proved with Geraldo, this is certainly not the case. And there is no way to calculate how many have the guts to take a public stance on such a controversial matter. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has stated, "there is a good reason that there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that support the official story.'"

Related Info:

Email from an Engineer in Phoenix

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2 Building What? is up...

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

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense

The JFK Assassination Autopsy Cover-up; Only One Picture is telling the Real story here:

I found this photo (here) that one could consider as a brief "anatomy" of the cover-up.

When these photos are juxtaposed with the damning physical evidence, indicating that Kennedy was shot from the front, we are left with the conclusion that the Dallas Doctors, who first saw the victim, correctly understood the nature of the wounds.

Related Info:

Alex Jones interviews Jim Marrs about JFK, the parallels to 911, JFK the Directors cut, and what went into the making of the movie

The Kennedy Assassination - Jim Marrs Interviews Doug Horne

Debunk This! Part 6: J.F.K Conspiracy - Second Shooter

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 5 (JFK) 4 PARTS

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

Bill Hicks on JFK: Two Critical lessons for the Citizens of the USA

Jim Garrison's (Kevin Costner's) Closing Argument / Final Speech - JFK

This should be a laugh...

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Why focusing on WTC7 is not a waste of time...

Now that FOX news appears to be tiptoeing onto the 9/11 truth train, some people in the truth movement are understandably suspicious. I've been reading the comments over at 9/11 blogger. Some commenters are suggesting this may be a ploy to make it seem like WTC7 is the final mystery, and then debunk it or even, as some have suggested, admit that it was demolished but fit it within the official story somehow.

With regards to the second theory, I think this comment by SnowCrash sums it up:

That would be great. Because that would mean that everything that NIST told us about building seven up until now would be one gigantic fraud. It would reveal a well financed, well orchestrated deception on an epic scale that would completely demolish every last shred of credibility NIST, and by extension the government has.

Nobody would believe the government on anything about 911 after that.

If WTC 7 was indeed blown up, I really don't care what excuse they come up with if they admit it.

All hell is going to break loose, you have no idea.

I really don't think they will ever just admit WTC7 was demolished to dismiss us. The implication of such an admission would be a bigger scientific scandal than ClimateGate. The Quasi-governmental academic establishment is working very hard to hold on to their dwindling credibility. Admitting they decieved us about WTC7 is the worst thing they could do. The bigger the lie, the bigger the need to hold on to it.

If their goal is to try and debunk it ... let them. They'll just expose themselves some more. The best these clowns have are Jim Meigs and Michael Shermer. Or they could invite Shyam Sundar to bullshit around the subject of freefall again. And they can't do an emotional hitpiece or use their favourite ad-hominems now that they've finally acknowledged the family members in the movement.

Of course there's much more to 9/11 truth than just WTC7, but the problem with the other stuff is it requires a fair bit of research and dot-connecting, and most people just can't be bothered - and considering the amount of misinformation that's out there, I don't blame them. WTC7 is a seven second smack-in-the-face wake up call that everyone can understand. There's a reason the media doesn't like to talk about it. It's the real-life equivalent of those glasses in the movie They Live. And after seeing it's collapse for the first time and seeing family members plea for justice, alot of people will be motivated to do more research anyway.

9/11 truth on mainstream TV is a victory - a small victory but a victory nonetheless. Infighting about the motivations is what they want. Hey, maybe that's the agenda... to get us fighting about whether or not there's an agenda... if so, it seems to have worked.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Debunk This! 201 (NWO)

Nov 19, 2010

A show for debunkers to do their thing as well as for the choir to have a reference point. So many people find it hard to believe that we are being Poisoned, tested on, lied to, that plans are documented to control and contain us as well as kill us by the powers that be. That indeed conspiracies exist and that not everyone who speaks of this is a nut job or else you would have to call yourself a nut job. Whether its O.J., Michael Jackson or 911, everyone speaks of conspiracies. This show isn't about why they do what they do, it's about the fact that it has and is being done: Therefore exists. This wont be a show covering hours worth of evidence. We will focus on an element or two to keep it simple, to the point.

Debunk This! Season 1 Double DVD -


US Patent Privatization Market Place:

Related Info:

Debunk This! Series

Debunk This! 008 ( 911 Conspiracy )

Debunk This! 202 (ChemTrails)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Thursday, November 18, 2010

The official 9/11 lie used by TSA as a reason to abuse children, women, and the handicapped

THIS is what the official 9/11 governmental conspiracy lie has wrought.
TSA officer pulls a child's underpants down in public and gropes her while child is screaming don't touch me in her Mothers arms.
an elderly gentleman in a wheel chair is detained because of a replaced knee and sits in his underwear in public.
a child with leg braces who cannot walk is told he would have to walk with out his braces through a scanner.
there's more horror stories and they just keep coming.
THIS is why it is important to expose the lie!
THIS is why 9/11 Truth is vitally important!
THIS is why we Truthers continue the fight .... because if we do not then what or who is gonna stop these kind of abominations carried out in the name of 9/11?

It is clear that the "terrorist "are working at the airports and that they are officially sanctioned by our government !

Muddled Questions about 911 Truth Evidence: A Response to "avicenne" & Adam Corella's Comments regarding Ed Asner's Statements.

Understandably many people who question the veracity of the evidence revealing 911 was an inside job tend to come at the issues from a very uninformed perspective. This is understandable given the fact most of us live in a world polluted by the misleading and often simplistic official (read corporate media) portrayal of these events.

In this environment it is easy to see why people like "avicenne" on this blog, and Adam Corella (in an interview with Ed Asner), have picked up the wrong ideas about certain matters pertaining to 911 truth.

In a comment intended for avicenne I ended up answering some of the questions recently put to Asner; like why would you blow up the Towers to invade Iraq when you could "simply" try to plant WMDs in that country ? The answer, of course, is that it is unlikely 911 was simply about gaining a reason to invade Iraq. Hopefully the following responses to avicenne (see below) will deal with most of the confusion recently aired:

[Note:one must consider that not all criticism of 911 truth is necessarily bad. Many 911 truth claims have been shown to be false or unproven. The central point to remember is that the core arguments in the "truther" case rest upon proven scientific fact and documented evidence.]



I cannot help but be blunt....

Your response here, likely due to our society's conditioned "anti-conspiracy" mindset, reflects a shallow analysis of the specific issues raised and highlights a level of ignorance regarding the incidents covered.

Most importantly it appears, in your "research", that you have failed to grasp the significance of the physical evidence that has proven the 911 attacks involved a massive level of inside help.

Regardless of whether you think 911 "bears all the marks of the disorder/bleakness/randomness/ghastliness of a [genuine] terrorist attack" and that there are two many dumb mistakes, there is still no way past the forensic, literally smoking gun, proof that the WTC buildings were brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques. To believe the official story one must throw the physics text book out the window.

avicenne, there could have been a million incredulous mistakes and pink elephants dancing around to make the 911 conspiracy hypothesis look ridiculous, but that would not change the truth about the damning physical evidence.

The core physical evidence proving 911 was an inside job is straightforward. Steel framed high rise buildings, ones hit by aircraft (the Towers) and ones NOT hit by aircraft (WTC7), should never disintegrate into clouds of dust or drop at freefall speeds (leaving behind traces of high tech explosives) without them having been rigged for demolition.

It is because of this proof that we have thousands of scientists, academics, engineers and other professions joining the 911 truth groups. Are they all so misguided ? I don't think so.

avicenne, it is time to take a second look at some of the misguided/false assumptions you hold. It is likely you pigeon holed the evidence in question to fit some of your overarching false assumptions:

Assumption 1. The attacks were designed so there could be a War for oil in Iraq. [This is a big overarching assumption.] Why not plant WMDs ? !!??

Answer: The attacks were not simply about allowing for War in Iraq. Iraq was NOT the primary target and getting Iraqi collaborators into the mix as opposed to Saudi "Al Qaeda" terrorists is not as easy as you suppose. Planting credible WMDs in Iraq (if you wanted to specifically go after Iraq) would also have been very difficult and a distaster if uncovered by the Iraqi authorities. Plus consider the physical evidence that has exposed 911. It is likely that in 2002-2003 the perps would have been apprehensive about running another op that could have easily overstepped the mark a second time.

Avicenne, thanks to the renegade terrorist scenario that has played out we are now fighting an endless GLOBAL War on Terror. Simply targeting Iraq is very one dimensional (strategically limiting). A general War on Terror allows for enemies to exist everywhere such that they can never be defeated, especially when our own side (intelligence agencies) sponsors them or pretends to be them. In this scenario there is greater scope to "tear up the US Constitution" and apply domestic constrains on the fearful population. Watch or read "1984." This would be a more accurate summation of the situation.

Assumption 2. Why stage a Daylight attack on TV that would "expose" the evidence of building demolitions ?

Answer: It seems reasonable to conclude that the point of the 911 plan was always to bring the Towers down in a dramatic way to instigate a massive emotional response from the US people. The attacks were not ment to be hidden, only the means of demolition. Importantly the whole idea is to have the theatre of the Tower "collapses" well covered on national TV. Also, if you used explosives at night, even "quiet" thermite-based ones that limit the sound levels, you have a problem of explosive flashes. At night the demolition would be more obvious. Videos would show a lot of flash evidence that could not be explained. Lastly, at night, with the building empty, the death toll would be much less significant. A few hundred people killed versus a few thousand is something to consider in terms of propaganda purposes.

Assumption 3. Thousands involved would mean someone would have talked.

Answer: A few hundred may have been involved, not thousands. You can compartmentalise parts of the plan so that not everyone involved would know what is going on. Also, even if many thousands were involved in such a plan, why would any of them talk ? Why ? Conspiracy to commit murder, when such acts are followed through, bring about harsh penalties. Furthermore, anyone talking is likely to end up dead. Do you think the chief murdering scumbags are gonna simply let people say anything without facing the threat of torture and execution ?

Assumption 4. The secret Cabal has so much power they could have run everything differently to better hide what they were doing.

Answer: avicenne, these people are not all powerful. They do not control everything.They must manipulate the things they do not fully control as best they can. If you've played recreational war games you will realise the best plans, with the greatest levels of control over "all" aspects of the operation, are subject to MANY variables. Mistakes will be made. Furthermore, the more audacious and arrogant one is, the more likely the planner will make errors or take risks when going through a new scenario. Think of the Russians being massacred in Grozny during the first Chechen War- driving tanks and APCs through built up areas without protecting them with adequate infantry cover ! Thankfully, for these 911 murderers, we all live in a society that a priori dismisses the notion of the big conspiracy. ie. the attacks are impossible simply because they could never be done.

Assumption 5. The "dumb" "pull it"comments by Silverstein in relation to WTC7.

Answer: Silverstein is not stupid. Who knows exactly what he was thinking, but perhaps he was awkwardly trying to account for the very obvious Controlled Demolition of the WTC7 building by imply that the New York Fire Department was somewhat responsible. Perhaps he thought that the facts about the CD of WTC7 could not possibly be avoided. Who would be "stupid" enough to think that fire caused such a collapse ? If he screwed up then he screwed up. It does not change the fact about the physical proof we have regarding the demolitions.

Assumption 6. Holding War Games on 911 gives the game away. (Not at all. Hiding a diamond among fake diamonds is a useful tactic.)

Answer: How likely is the 911-aircraft-attack-plan going to succeed if the US defence system is operating normally ? We know USAF generals lied their asses off about their capabilities during the 911 Commission. Plus what happens if some aspects of the plan are discovered before the attacks ? If it is tied up with anti terror/anti hijack drills then you can cover for any mistakes that are made. You can tell people at FBI HQ that the terrorists they've uncovered are part of an intelligence drill or monitored operation and they must be left alone for the sake of National Security.
Avicenne, you need to get a level head on all this.

Now please consider that not all conspiracy claims have equal weight.

The voice morphings, the Satanic Dick, the assumptive labelling of the entire military industrial complex as a nefarious whole, that Bush 2 is a killer of women and children, the drones into the pentagon hypothesis, "advertising" the New Pearl Harbour plot, choosing patsies that can't fly etc** does nothing except to show that you have muddled so many different issues and then dismissed the lot. You must consider how each of these things stands on its own and consider the fact of the Controlled Demolition evidence. The WTC demolitions did occur. You must therefore take a second look at all this stuff you jumble together.

**The voice morphing hypothesis is contentious. Real calls may have been made. This does not diminish the WTC CD evidence. If the voice morphing is discounted the entire conspiracy case is not dismantled. That would be illogical.

**Satanic Dick ? He's a warmonger and has little problem sending people off to kill and be killed in unnecessary wars. He's likely to have little problem with overseeing the 911 attacks. The WTC CD evidence still stands. 911 is still an inside job.

**Obviously not all the military industrial complex would have been involved in 911. However, some of these folks are not exactly nice people. Certain strategically minded individuals in this complex did want to stage false attacks against US citizens in the 1960s- to be blamed on Cuba. Some in recent years may very likely have agreed to assist the 911 scenario for strategic reasons. Why not ? If the loss of life were to be controlled then okay. Endless semi-controllable conflict would result.

**Bush 2 IS a killer of women and children through his illegal wars.

**Drones into the Pentagon is contentious. There is evidence of airliner wreckage there. Witnesses saw a plane resembling an AA aircraft. Something did occur at the Pentagon, we are not entirely sure what. If the drone hypothesis is false this does not negate the rest of the conspiracy case.

**Writing about a "New Pearl Harbour" is not exactly advertising to blow up the WTC buildings. Regardless, the WTC buildings were blown up via CD and the people involved in the "advertising", the neocons, are the same people tied in to the 911 false flag.

**Patsies that can't fly. A significant detail but not one that can't be dealt with if the whole population a priori believes that 19 Arab hijackers took over 4 airliners for suicide purposes.

Avicenne, not everything is according to what you assume. Don't believe the propaganda you've been fed by the corporate press. You are the one holding the illogical position. The official story cannot possibly be true. The WTC buildings were brought down using Controlled Demolition. We have been lied to.


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

EU President Herman Van Rompuy is Yoda!

(Image by Brocke).

Nation states are dead: EU chief says the belief that countries can stand alone is a 'lie and an illusion'

Mr Van Rompuy’s speech in the German capital told his audience that ‘the time of the homogenous nation state is over’.

He added that the ‘danger’ of Euroscepticism was spreading beyond the confines of countries such as Britain and was becoming a stronger force across the whole continent.

‘We have together to fight the danger of a new Euroscepticism,’ he declared. ‘This is no longer the monopoly of a few countries.

‘In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion – it is a lie.’

The Belgian equated Euroscepticism with fear, which eventually leads to war – echoing former French president Francois Mitterrand’s famous phrase that ‘nationalism is war’.

‘The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear,’ he said. ‘Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Rivera Focuses on WTC 7

John-Michael chiming in here to focus in on this important comment from Jon Gold at

“BuildingWhat?” Appears on Geraldo At Large on FOX News

I Made this movie when the BBC released its debunking documentary about WTC7. I was furious because they referred to it as the "final mystery" of 9/11 as if the "case" was closed. The question of how those buildings came down is but ONE of the MANY mysteries of 9/11. Geraldo Rivera referred to it as, "the one 9/11 mystery that endures..." It makes me nervous that they're going to have a debunker on to "refute" what's being said, and then say "the one 9/11 mystery that endures" has been solved, and there's nothing more to the story.

Though he acted as if the family members haven't been speaking out since day one, and though he referred to us as nutjobs, congratulations to Bob and nyccan.
Related Info:

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2

Building What? is up...

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

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense

Geraldo ‘much more open minded’ about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads

Saturday, November 13, 2010

New Action Page at "BuildingWhat?"

Ask Officials to Investigate Building 7

Related Info:

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

Building What? is up...

Hitler knows what Nano-Thermite in the WTC dust means, JREFers don't

I was looking through the comments on "The Great Thermate Debate" post on 911blogger and came across a hilarious video by Jon Cole that I had never seen before.

I went over to the JREF forum to get their take and found the typical facepalm comments and one asking how nano-thermite could bring down a tower, (a point sliced through like a hot knife through butter by Jon Cole's new video) after which they pull the "debunker" card of suggesting it isn't a real substance anyway.

"ElMondoHummus" writes:

Yes. The excuse is that organics combusting in the chip are what sends the readings above and beyond just pure thermite. And admittedly, if that were true and there was both a thermite redox and a regular burning of the organics present, there would be no way to separate the energy release of one from another. But that does beg the question of why the calorimeter argument was even made, and it does reveal the basic dishonesty of the paper; I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake, given that the energy density of a thermite reduction is well known. The energy density was presented as proof that this was an "energetic substance" (which it was), but then conflated with thermite (which was merely alleged).
First off, as the paper notes, "The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."

As an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. about the sol-gel process states, "Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

The fact that the material found in the WTC dust is more energetic and has a lower ignition temperature than a known sample of nano-thermite doesn't mean that it isn't nano-thermite, but rather that it is a very powerful form of nano-thermite!

The commenter also states:

The researchers did not eliminate the possibility that all the heat release was due to organics burning - and on top of that, breezily ignored the fact that the variations in their runs indicated a problem with such a thesis (why so much variation in a substance allegedly designed to be an incendiary?).
As Jim Hoffman has pointed out, "The authors attribute this variation to the fact that the chips had different ratios of active red material to inert gray material." This makes perfect sense and therefore they didn't "breezily ignore" the issue! Furthermore, the fact that the chips create molten-iron spheres is itself evidence of a high temperature chemical reaction, which would not happen if they were just chips of paint as "debunkers" have asserted.

Friday, November 12, 2010

The neverending incredulity of JREFers

After watching Jon Cole's excellent presentation "The Great Thermate Debate", I decided to visit the wretched hive of scum and villiany that is the JREF forum and read the responses from the people who believe that well placed, accurately timed, 4500 degree thermite reactions are unable to bring down a building symmetrically, but scattered, 1400 degree office fires that move around every half an hour or so CAN bring down a building symmetrically.

It never ceases to amaze me how much 'skeptics', who pride themselves on their ability to detect logical fallacies, violate their own rules when it's convenient. Ad-hominem attacks, straw man arguments and appeals to authority are the most common, but when all else fails there's always the argument of personal incredulity...

E.g.: "I can't imagine HOW WTC7 could be covertly demolished, therefore I'm going to deny all the hard forensic evidence that proves that WTC7 WAS covertly demolished"

As the 9/11 truth movement continues to falsify the debunkers' incredulous arguments, as Jon Cole has done in this new video, their responses just become ever more nitpicky.

It seems they are now beginning to accept that a thermite/thermate demolition is possible, but once again the goalposts have been moved, and now we must come up with an even more detailed theory about how demolition crews had such intimate access to the steel, how they coordinated it all, and how they disposed of any evidence of steel thermate cutter cases. Until we do that they are just going to carry on dismissing us. Here's a thought ... how about you support our demands for a criminal investigation so that we'll have the authority to properly investigate and find out the answers to these questions. What part of "We've done the CSI-style science, now we need a criminal investigation" don't you understand?

There's a fallacy commonly employed by creationists in the evolution debate that Michael Shermer calls "the fossil fallacy". Whenever a new transitional fossil is discovered that bridges the gap between two major groups of animals - for example Tiktaalik, the link between fish and amphibians - the creationist response will be "Well now you have two gaps! There's now a gap between fish and Tiktaalik, and a gap between Tiktaalik and amphibians!". So as their questions are answered, it just creates even more doubt in their minds. It's sort of like whack-a-mole, or at least that's what Shermer claims.

What we're seeing from the debunkers is the 9/11 equivalent of Shermer's fossil fallacy.

Oooooh ... that's right, I just compared JREFers to creationists ... they won't be happy! I basically just called Eric Cartman a ginger hippy jew!

And maybe that's it, maybe that's what's driving their thermite denialism. There was an episode of South Park a year or so ago called "Fishsticks", in which Jimmy came up with a joke which became a nationwide sensation, but Cartman genuinuely believed he had something to do with it coz his inflated ego wouldn't let him believe otherwise. And he kept flashing back to the moment with increasingly overblown and fantastical recollections to the point where he convinced himself that not only did he come up with the joke all on his own, but he also slew a dragon and defeated an army of 'jew bots' with powers similar to the Human Torch. The more I read JREF posts, the more I realise their mentality isn't all that different!

"... Wegen Neunundneunzig Luftballons!"

Red alert over bizarre North Korean plan to attack G20 summit with balloons filled with chemical weapons

A bizarre plot by North Korea to attack the G20 summit using balloons filled with biological or chemical weapons emerged last night.

The claim that ageing tyrant Kim Jong-Il will attempt to disrupt the gathering – attended by David Cameron and other world leaders – has been taken seriously by Western diplomats.

Read more:

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time

The last time civil engineer Jonathan Cole did an experiment for free that NIST couldn’t for millions 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening had this to say, "I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it ....."

Well, Mr. Cole is back and he's packing heat! Any other "debunkers" out there willing to admit you were wrong? We've already accepted your apology in advance National Geographic.

Keep in mind while watching this that the MIT article "Military Reloads with Nanotech" stated that nano-thermite "can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times."

The scientists report that the material found in the WTC dust is mixed in a sol-gel matrix with organic components and as an April 2000 report by Gash et. al. about the sol-gel process states, "Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."

Related Info:

National Geographic vs Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup

Mr. Deets Shows Curley is the Clown

9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

7/7: The world is not black or white.

Yesterday it was widely reported in the media that a severely injured survivor of 7/7 had told the inquest into the bombings how he witnessed Mohammed Sidique Khan blow himself up from just a few feet away. Not surprisingly, debunkers have seized upon this as proof that there was no conspiracy. One of the commenters on the Daily Mail article writes:

"So where are the "7/7 was an inside job" commenters? This survivor saw who did it, as he did it."
- Kip Hamilton, Virginia USA, 9/11/2010 4:10, Rating ↑76

Also not surprisingly, the conspiracy world has come up with all kinds of theories about how this man's account could be a fabrication - either he's somehow in on it, or he's been threatened, or he's under mind control, or he's had false memories implanted etc.

The logic behind these theories is mostly circular: 'This evidence contradicts my beliefs, therefore it must be false!'

It certainly is possible that he could be mistaken. As we have noted on this blog before, in response to the claims of the Citizen Investigation Team, there have been cases of victims of sexual assault misidentifying their own abuser. But let's just for the sake of argument assume this man's story is accurate... So what?!

I've studied a number of scientific and historical controversies over the past couple of years, including the 9/11 debate, the climate change debate, the vaccine/natural health debate and the creation/evolution debate, and one common thing I notice from both sides of each of these controversies is a false perception of the debates as being 'black versus white' issues.

The 9/11 debunkers, for example, seem to think that evidence that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks somehow counts against alternative theories, as if it's one or the other, but it's not that simple. You could produce an unquestionably authentic, high definition video of Bin Laden, KSM, the 19 hijackers etc. sat round a table planning their operation and it still wouldn't convince me of the government's innocence. All it would prove is that one pawn really was involved, but all the evidence that points to a much larger chess game is still valid. Sadly, even many truthers don't see this, so they spend alot of time contesting evidence of the pawn's guilt, which is often counter productive and leads to pointless debates and unfounded speculation.

It's the same thing with 7/7. Even if you could prove beyond all doubt that the four accused men really were on the trains and really did blow themselves up, it doesn't falsify evidence of foreknowledge or explain away the 'coincidence' of Peter Power's simultaneous training exercises or the fact that the explosives appeared from the devastation to be "of military origin". It seems to me that focusing on anomalies with the train times, the CCTV footage, witness statements etc. to try and prove the bombers were never even there is exactly what they want. The supposed anomalies may have even been deliberate to trap us into doing just that.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about answers."

~ Thomas Pynchon

Related Info:

7/7 The Big Picture

The BBC Ripple Effect: Exposing the Lies and Distortions of "The Conspiracy Files-7/7"

BBC 7/7 "Documentary": Just a hitpiece, or something more sinister?

7/7 Crash Course London Bombings Data Page

To the Directors of the NIST 911 "Investigation": Misprision of Treason

Misprision of treason is an offence found in many common law jurisdictions around the world, having been inherited from English law. It is committed by someone who knows a treason is being or is about to be committed but does not report it to a proper authority. It is therefore unusual in that it is a criminal offence which may be committed through inaction.

The supposedly scientific NIST reports into the WTC collapses constitute a level of fraud, through heinous omissions, gross distortions and illogical argument, and appear designed to obscure evidence pointing to an Act of Treason occurring on 9/11/2001. Directors of such a reports should be held accountable for producing such a misleading and harmful document that obstructs efforts at seeking Justice for all the victims of the September 11 attacks.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

The Call of Duty Ad on YouTube UK

"Black Ops 9/11" - They're frickin' laughing at us!

Too Rich ...

George W Bush became opposed to abortion when mother showed him dead foetus

Rofl! ... Lmao! ... Yeh right ... sure ... George W Bush is 'pro-life' ... Bwaaahahahahahaaa! ... Too funny! ... Almost as funny as when atheists - when trying to discredit religion - point out that he's a devout Christian ... If you really believe that, there's a forty foot stone owl in Monte Rio I'd like to sell you! ... lol.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Debunking Mark Roberts

Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":

The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.

Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.
Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:

Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.
Response to Mark Roberts' “WTC Not a Demolition” video

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

Debunking Popular

This page is a response to the "Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" page at Popular and to Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog who thinks "it links to lots of terrific sources."

Debunking Penn and Teller's Bullshit! 9-11 episode

PharmaWhores: The Showtime Sting of Penn & Teller

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

They tested one steel beam that was just laying across a pit with a pool of jet fuel? It's interesting how they never mention that Underwriters Labs had created full scale models of the WTC floor sections, tested them in hotter and longer fires, and that they didn't collapse. Clearly the conditions were going to be different and have different results. Namely: the fact that their test was out in the open with plenty of oxygen fueling the fire while the Twin Towers clearly had oxygen starved fires; the fact that their beam wasn't attached to anything and therefore had far less support than in the WTC; and that they aren't clear how similar their beam was to the ones in the WTC. - Source: National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood
Why the Towers Fell - An Exclusive Investigation into the Collapse of the World Trade Center (2002) by Garfield Kennedy and Larry Klein, directors

This video by NOVA presents FEMA's explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers. NOVA's companion website to the video is critiqued here. NOVA does not consider whether controlled demolition was involved. - Source
World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2001) by Steve Spak Productions

This documentary uses computer graphics to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers. It blames a flaw in the design of the Twin Towers for their total collapse. A simulation of the initiation of a collapse explains that the floors held up the walls. It shows perimeter walls bowing out immediately following the severing of connections between the trusses under a floor and the walls. Like the NOVA special, this explanation is based on the truss failure theory, later abandoned by NIST. - Source

References Debunked:

"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

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

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

Scientific American's Dishonest AttackOn 911Research - a critique of Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories published in Scientific American

The Pentagon - The September 11th Attack

Official Pentagon Investigations - Sketchy Reports by Volunteer Investigators and Academics

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Thermodynamics of 9/11

Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - added comments are in red

Reports Debunked:

Responses to NIST's FAQs

The Facts Speak For Themselves

"Here's a 'Debunking' of my article.

Here's a short film I made about 'debunkers.'" - Source

The 9/11 Commission Cover up

FEMA's Investigation - The FEMA WTC Building Performance Study

References Debunked:

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless

The BBC's The Third Tower


WTC 7 - the Case for no Collapse - Debunking the WTC 7 Conspiracy Theory of NIST - and some Thoughts how WTC 7 was destroyed

Critique of Manuel Garcia's Dark Fire The Fall of WTC 7

"Conspiracy Theory Videos"

Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

Debunking the 59 Deceits: Deceits 50-59

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11

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.

Hoax-Promoting Videos

In Plane Site
Loose Change (Editions 1,2)
9/11 Eyewitness

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

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.


News that the Democracy Now! radio show was scheduling a debate on 9/11/2006 between a spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and the creator of Loose Change Dylan Avery prompted the following letters

Democracy When? a timeline of Amy Goodman's not-so-good coverage which avoids 9/11 complicity and Peak Oil Wars

Debunking Mark Roberts

Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":
The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.

Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.
Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:
Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.
Response to Mark Roberts' “WTC Not a Demolition” video

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

Mock Debate: Strongest 9/11 Myth Arguments Crumble as Truth Prevails.

Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

And of course pretty much everything posted at the Debunking the Debunkers blog is a debate! If one searches our content for popular "debunkers" or their sites they will find refutations of much of their material.


Books: The World Trade Center

Books: Other Topics

Google Books: Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory

Peer-Reviewed Papers

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Anders Björkman Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Another Peer Reviewed Paper Published in Scientific Journal - 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust...'

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones - Published in "The Environmentalist"

9-11 Truth Movement: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

Dr. Crockett Grabbe published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

"The closed mind, if closed long enough, can be opened by nothing short of dynamite." - Johnson, Gerald W.

If nano-thermite can't do it dynamite doesn't stand a chance either!