Pat Curley Has Made Up His Mind

And apparently that’s never going to change. Mr. Curley has commented on my recent article posted at ae911truth.org, and seems to think there’s a contradiction. He writes:

Box Boy Gage publishes another article supposedly debunking the latest version of the Popular Mechanics book. Get this part:

PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue. There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer.

So now we’re back to explosions?  Remember two years ago, Gage debated Chris Mohr at the University of Colorado (Boulder) where there was this exchange:

Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.

Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.

The first blatant problem I have to call Pat out on is the fact that he cites a supposed problem with Richard Gage’s argumentation, when it’s my arguments that are the focus of the article. Notice that the top of the article reads “Written by Adam Taylor.” That’s because I wrote it and make my own arguments. While ae911truth has generously posted my articles at their site, the content of those articles is mine. Since Pat apparently can’t tell the difference between something I wrote and something Richard Gage said, it’s difficult to see this as anything but a straw-man argument.

Second, there’s no contradiction to begin with. I explained this two years ago to Pat’s buddy James, who also has problems understanding arguments presented by the other side. Pat’s characterization of my article as “supposedly” debunking Popular Mechanics is also interesting, since he doesn’t actually point out anything I got wrong. I’m not particularly surprised by this, but it doesn’t make it any less irritating.

More amusing than Pat’s hand-waving, however, is a comment left by one of ScrewLooseChange’s frequent visitors “Richard Gage's Testicles.” He says of me:

Oh good, Gage got more unpaid out of Adam Taylor. Taylor’s an obnoxious little pseudoskeptical anarchist wannabe, judging from his videos.

And as usual he misses the point. The absence of physical evidence of explosions outweighs reports of "explosions" in any number.

As far as I’m aware, RGT is the first to refer to me as an anarchist, so now I can check that off the list of names I’ve been called online. And pseudoskeptical am I? How so? What characteristics of a pseudoskeptic have I exhibited? Have I made judgments without full inquiry, such as Pat has done here? Or do I frequently use ad hominems, like RGT does here and elsewhere? Or have I used double standards in the application of my criticisms, like both Pat and RGT are doing here by not criticizing Popular Mechanics for the massive amount of flaws they’ve made? And contrary to what RGT asserts, I haven’t “missed the point” at all regarding the physical evidence of explosives. We’ve covered that issue extensively at the 911Debunkers blog, and we’ve addressed attempts to invalidate that evidence as well. Me thinks the man should reconsider who’s the real pseudoskeptic here.

I’m not the first to point these things out, and it shouldn’t be necessary for me to have to keep pointing them out, but as I said at the beginning, Pat’s apparently made up his mind, and that’s evidently never going to change no matter how many times it has to be pointed out to him. 

My Amazon Review of Popular Mechanics' "Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011 Edition"

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/product-reviews/1588165477/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R21XROM24OW63X

Popular Mechanic's revised edition of their book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" will surely impress those who already believe the 9/11 Truth Movement has no credibility. It will likely serve as reassurance that the so called "conspiracy theories" about the September 11th attacks have officially been put to rest. However, for those of us who have actually taken the time to analyze the claims made by both truthers and debunkers alike, one finds that PM not only gets the facts wrong, but also engages in deliberate misrepresentations of the Truth Movement's arguments. Granted, I do believe that a plane hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. So as far as that's concerned, PM is more or less right. However, their discussion of the WTC controlled demolition theory is one of the most disgustingly flawed things I've ever read.

Even after 5 years of addressing PM's many flawed arguments, they still continue to rehash many of the same claims that have long been debunked by members of the Truth Movement. For example, they continue parrot NIST's claim that the molten flow seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower was molten aluminum, a claim that has long been refuted. (Google: Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis... ) Also, PM's assessment of the Truth Movement is disgustingly misrepresentative, and even downright deceptive. For on pages 28-29 of their 2011 book, they actually claim that "not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Of course! Never mind that fact that there are currently over 1600 architects, engineers, and other building professionals who believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with explosives. See: ae911truth.org In fact, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is not a single mention of the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or its founder architect Richard Gage. (Google: The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts... ) Despite the fact that PM claims to be taking on the Truth Movement and its arguments, PM somehow missed the largest group of credentialed experts who agrees with the Movement. Either this is extremely bad journalism on PM's part, or simply shear deception.

And PM is fond of doing this on a smaller scale in their new book as well. While attempting to debunk truther claims of "free fall" for the Twin Towers, they mention a scientific paper by Dr. Keith Seffen supporting the "plane impact/fire" theory, and then quotes one random truther claiming that Seffen is "an accessory after the fact in the crime of mass-murder." However, when reading this part of PM's book, you might notice that they don't provide a direct source for this particular quote. They provide us with this person's personal website, yet nowhere is this quote found on said site. When one takes the time to track down PM's source, you'll find that the quote comes from a random blogspot site discussing Keith Seffen's paper. This truther's quote was merely a comment posted on the blog. (Google: 9-11 Anniversary Propaganda Special! WTC Demolition theory challenged by Cambridge University engineer ) In their attempt to portray truthers as irrational individuals, PM actually goes so low as to pull a random quote off a blogspot site that many in the Movement probably have never heard of. Were there any other members of the Movement PM could have quoted in regards to Keith Seffen's paper? Apparently not, unless you count Dr. Crockett Grabbe's detailed refutation of Seffen's paper (Google: sealane response to Seffen )

By far PM's saddest attempt at "debunking" the Truth Movement is their section on the nanothermite discovered in the WTC dust. Rather than actually trying to "debunk" this evidence, PM simply attempts to discredit the findings of the scientists who made this discovery by trying to cast doubt on the peer review of the study. This of course is nothing more than a dodge on PM's part. Rather than engage in an actual scientific debate, PM apparently prefers to smear their opponents with lies.

The structure of the book matches the poor quality of the information provided. In virtually every case where PM quotes a member of the Movement, they provide no direct source for where the quote came from. At most, PM will provide the reader with a website URL that the quote might have come from, but they apparently feel no need to provide the reader with a direct link to where the quote came from on that site. They provide no endnotes that take the reader to direct sources either. Basically, because their information is sourced so poorly, it's impossible to know whether they've got something right or not without going back and essentially redoing all their work. This basically makes their book useless, for why even bother reading the book when you're just going to end up redoing all their work anyway?

PM's book is by far one of the poorest attempts at discrediting the extensive research done by the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If you're a debunker or any other type of defender of the official story, this book will no doubt tickle your funny bone as you continue to mock and laugh at the "twoofers." However, if you actually take the time to review PM's information and their methods, you will find that these are not laughing matters, and that a new investigation into the events of 9/11 is desperately still needed.

For detailed refutations of PM's book, Google: "Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality."

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

as long as you pretend they don't exist.

I've recently read the updated 2011 version of Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11Myths, and I plan on writing a full response to their controlled demolition sections. However, I wanted to discuss one particular statement in their book that I feel deserves special attention.

Their book is updated with several new sections discussing topics such as the Active Thermitic Material paper, Barry Jennings, and the 2008 NIST report on WTC7. But less than thirty pages into their book, I discovered that PM apparently was not up-to-date on everything that's happened in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here is what they say on pages 28-29:

"Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011, pg. 28-29 (Emphasis added)

I feel that the emphasised section bears repeating:

not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields.

And please don't take my word for it that their book says this. Read for yourself:


Well, I think it is plainly obvious to anyone who has payed attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 5 years why this statement deserves special attention. Popular Mechanics evidently chose to omit over 1600 credentialed experts who certainly have experience in "engineering, construction, or related fields," who question the official story of 9/11. Indeed, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is absolutely no mention of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See if you can spot "AE9/11Truth," Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," or "Gage, Richard."





And if we step back in time for a moment, we will see that this exact same statement appears in PM's 2006 book on the exact same pages.

It is painfully obvious what Popular Mechanics has chosen to do: update their book only where it benefits them, and pretend that any experts in engineering and building construction we have don't exist.

Welcome to 2011 PM. Your journalism never ceases to amaze.


Related Info:

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

25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

At the Screw Loose Change blog, a few new pictures of WTC 7 are featured to back up the claim that the building was heavily damaged. Funny that they didn't show this one!

Looks like the building wasn't scooped out after all. Shyam Sunder's "25% of the building" claim has officially been put to bed. Although Pat ignores it, the investigation Sunder led already realized this claim was too dubious to try and hoodwink people with.

Related Info:

9/11 debunking arguments...

Fabled Enemies

Popular Mechanics and others were "enlisted" by the government.

James Meigs and Cass Sunstein - Creepiest smiles ever!

Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's czars has had a paper out on the web for the last two years discussing how the government should deal with 'conspiracy theories'.

Link to the paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Some of the quotes from this paper are shocking, he says conspiracy theories should be banned or taxed:

"What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help."

Real life thought crime! Here's another interesting quote:

"The first dilemma is that either ignoring or rebutting a conspiracy theory has distinctive costs. Ignoring the theory allows its proponents to draw ominous inferences from the government’s silence. If the theory stands unrebutted, one possibility is that it is too ludicrous to need rebuttal, but another is that the government cannot offer relevant evidence to the contrary; the suppliers of the conspiracy theories will propose the second inference. On this view, all misinformation (the initial conspiracy theory) should be met with countermisinformation."

Countermisinformation?! In other words, if we can't debunk it with facts we'll just make stuff up! Or we'll ignore it and say it's too ludicrous to need rebuttal. That's right, the nanothermite evidence is too ludicrous to need rebuttal. It's obviously just your run-of-the-mill explosive nanocomposite primer paint!

But the most interesting quote is this...

"Expanding the cast further, one may see the game as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts – such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics – whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts."

ENLIST?! So they were enlisted were they? They didn't just get sick of people approaching them at parties and asking them about 9/11, as Davin Coburn has repeatedly claimed? Here we have documented confirmation of what we have suspected for a while. How can they be "independent experts" if they are enlisted by the government!?

There's a lot more interesting stuff in there. It basically confirms everything we've suspected about disinformation and infiltration.

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers

The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," which states that one way to achieve this goal is to:

Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.

Sunstein and Beck Fire Shots Across Our Bow

Your Government Appointees at Work

My take on Ventura's 9/11 Show

I just downloaded and watched Ventura's 9/11 show, and I am amazed this was allowed to air. The whole first half of the episode was amazing. Steven Jones, Superthermite, Building 7, William Rodriguez, Family members who our on our side, False flag defined ... this documentary really put the BBC to shame.

The second half of the episode was okay and I found the ending interesting but I'm a little skeptical... could be more disinformation. Normally when people who know something are thinking of coming forward or reveal part of what they know, they are killed. Whatever may come of it, it should certainly be investigated.

The superthermite demonstration was a bit crap .. and they didn't even show the ending so I'm assuming the beam didn't break. To be honest I'm not sure it was superthermite, the documentary did mix thermite and superthemite a few times. Also it was never explicitly stated whether the particles in the demonstration were on the nano scale. However it did appear to burn longer than ordinary thermite. Which is interesting because it's consistent with the fact that ground zero cooked for several months after the event.

Certain parts of the episode were blatantly scripted and dramatized and I chuckled when the narrator addressed Jesse's crew as an "elite team of investigators", but that isn't a bad thing. This is the type of stuff the public likes so it makes for a great introduction ... it's sheeple friendly if you will. Plus the dialogue between Jesse and the skeptic on his team was a very well done. It's something that has never been done in any 9/11 documentary before - having a skeptic on to ask the questions the viewer is thinking. The skeptic essentially portrays the cognitive dissonance of the viewer. As the viewer goes through the usual mental gymnastics, asking questions like "how could they get all that thermite in there?", to try and cast doubt on our theories, the skeptic asks those questions on the show, prompting answers from others. It's a pretty ingenious way of doing it.

All in all this is the best mainstream 9/11 truth documentary by far and it really shows what a bit of unbiased investigation can accomplice... just imagine what the BBC or Popular Mechanics could have accomplished if they actually bothered to properly investigate it in any way. Kudos to Jesse and his team ... I'm downloading the HAARP episode right now and I'll definitely be downloading the global warming one. I was surprised to see June Sarpong (the hot British woman) in this. I used to watch her on Channel 4 on Saturday mornings.

Related:

Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire latest book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies

Jesse Ventura: Make Politicians Wear NASCAR Suits

Debunking the Rebunking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Condi's bio on Wikipedia also contains this tidbit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Info:

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

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

Nano-thermite Demolishes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Sibel Edmonds: In Congress We Trust...NOT