Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Adam Taylor. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Adam Taylor. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

911DEBUNKERS.BLOGSPOT.COM Our Radio, Video, and Podcast Interviews

 

OUR RADIO, VIDEO, AND PODCAST INTERVIEWS


Check back for updates here...

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

New 2022 Interview with Debunking the Debunker's Blog Contributor Adam Taylor

Adam Taylor has been researching the events of September 11th since August of 2007. From 2010 to 2014 he contributed to the blog "Debunking the Debunkers of the 9/11 Truth Movement". He has also contributed technical articles to sites such as AE911Truth.org and ScientificMethod911.org. He is the author of the AE911Truth multi-part essay "Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality." More recently he's published a paper on the collapse of the Twin Towers in the April edition of the International Journal of Engineering and Techniques. We spoke on the scientific anomalies surrounding World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7, and what he thinks, along with the scientific data from various engineers and scientists have come up with, happened at Ground Zero on September 11th 2001. We also talk about the past, present and future of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the fringe conspiracy theorists have done to hurt it's public image.


Adam Taylor's Blog: 

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality:

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/436-debunking-the-real-9-11-myths-series

Scientific Method 9/11:

http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html

Monday, September 11, 2017

9/11 was an inside JOB, The moment of TRUTH 2017!! - Adam Taylor: Why 10 years (at least for me) is enough

For the 1,000 time just to be clear, many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.




Some very kind and greatly appreciated words from Adam Taylor here. I can't say I disagree about a new investigation ever happening. I carry on in the small capacity that I do for the sake of the court of public opinion and history never repeating itself.

Adam Taylor: Why 10 years (at least for me) is enough


Excerpts:

Then in 2009, I had yet another life-changing moment, partly due again to Loose Change. It was announced that the Loose Change crew would be releasing a fourth edition of the film: Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Needless to say, I was very excited about this, and wanted to be kept up-to-date on the progress of the film. So I began to frequent the Loose Change 
website, and in particular its forum (though I never signed up as a poster). And one day while scrolling through a thread, I found someone had posted a link to a website I had never heard of: 911debunkers.blogspot.com. And I found it was a comprehensive site devoted to answering the claims of 9/11 debunkers, run by activist John-Michael Talboo. I eventually contacted him, just to tell him how impressed I was with the site, and told him and the other contributors to keep up the good work. I myself had produced a series of videos aimed at debunking the debunkers, and John-Michael offered to post them at his site. Eventually, he asked if I would like to become a contributor, and while I had never written for a website, I happily accepted the offer...
...That one was especially important for me, because it was the first time I was ever in New York for 9/11. Me, John-Michael and his wife had gone out to join our fellow truthers to 

Me in New York, 9/11/2011.
demonstrate, and it was an incredible experience. Finally, after years of blogging and making videos about the attacks, relegating myself to presenting the evidence digitally from my computer, I was finally there. I was among like-minded activists for the first time, physically joining them in their call for a new investigation. Yet despite the energetic optimism I felt, I couldn't help but see the signs that the movement was on its last legs...

Thank you to the blog contributors at 911debunkers. I learned an enormous amount from all of you, and your insight into the attacks was more helpful than you'll ever know.

I would also like to thank the debunkers. Yes, that's right. Granted, this doesn't apply to all of them. Over the years, several of them were just complete dicks to me, and I honestly couldn't care less about them. But several of them provided civil, constructive criticisms that I always tried to take into account. Many of their arguments bettered me and my understanding of the attacks, and I'm grateful for that. And of course of all of them, I'm most grateful to Chris Mohr, whose video series gave me the chance to present a full, comprehensive demon-stration of the evidence. So to the debunkers, please know that I never considered you "enemies" of the Truth Movement. For me, the only enemies in this situation are those who carried out the attacks, whoever they may be.

Last but not least, my sincerest gratitude goes to John-Michael Talboo, one of my best friends, and the person who allowed me to do more in the movement that I ever thought I could. Allowing me to contribute to your site gave me the chance to be a part of something amazing, something that was making a real difference in the world. Not everyone would have given me that kind of chance, and there are no words to describe how grateful I am for that. Thank you brother.

More:

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2017/09/why-10-years-at-least-for-me-is-enough.html

Friday, April 12, 2013

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. 

Friday, July 28, 2023

Request for Revision of IC911 Point on Alleged 9/11 Hijackings

Roughly a month ago, I submitted a request for revision to the International Center for 9/11 Justice, which they've now published on their Debated Topics Forum. Alongside it, they also published a response from Kevin Ryan. Both papers can be accessed and read at the following link: https://ic911.org/debated-topics-forum. Or, you can access each paper individually at the following links:

They allow a response to be published within three months of the posted rebuttal, which I plan on writing and submitting in that timeframe. For now though, I encourage people to read both papers and decide who they think is right and makes the better arguments. I thank the International Center for publishing my paper. As I mention in the paper itself, I also thank Adam Fitzgerald, who made me aware of much of the information I included in the paper.

Friday, September 10, 2021

Excellent and Undebunkable Free 20th Anniversary 9/11 Truth eBook Featuring Much Material from 911debunkers.blogspot.com

A collection of essays by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor. Eleven chapters in total, this eBook is comprised of previously posted essays written during my decade+ of research into the events of 9/11. Includes my article originally published at ScientificMethod911.org, updated and expanded upon since its initial release. Also included are my technical articles and blog posts on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, and responses to debunkers attempting to defend the official narrative of 9/11. Almost 300 pages in length, this eBook contains detailed discussions, and includes over 600 references providing factual support. Freely available for all, who may do with the information as they see fit.

Webpage link: https://911docs.wordpress.com/20yearson



Excerpts:

First and foremost, my sincerest thanks have to go towards my dear friend John-Michael Talboo. I would never have come as far as I have and done as much as I did without your help and guidance, and a platform to present my work on. You have been an invaluable research partner, and an even more invaluable friend.

... 

The most productive period of my research, and where I posted most of my writings, was at the Debunking the Debunkers blog, created and hosted by my friend John-Michael Talboo. I also had the honor of contributing to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the largest independent organization scientifically analyzing the WTC collapses from a skeptical viewpoint. My research largely focused on the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7, whose destruction many believe was the result of controlled demolition with explosives.

...

23 “The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories,” America.gov, 5 May 2009, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20110323153132/http://www.america. gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html. Comment on this article: John-Michael Talboo, “ALERT: US State Department Cannot Afford Professional Advice on WTC Destruction,” AE911Truth, 3 December 2010, at http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/414- alert-us-state-department-cannot-afford-professional-advice-on-wtc-destruction.html.

...

For more on this discussion, see John-Michael Talboo and Adam Taylor, “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact,” 3 October 2020, at https://911docs.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/debunking911 debunkingwtcwithstand707impact2.pdf.

...


We then get a discussion of Dr. James Millette’s study of the WTC dust, and how his study came to opposite conclusions to Dr. Jones’ et al. Millette’s study ultimately determined the material found was likely paint from the Towers.26 However, a detailed essay by researchers John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam shows many flaws in Millette’s study, and that further research needs to be done.27

...

John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam, “9/11: Explosive Material in the WTC Dust,” ver. 1.3, at https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/911explosivematerialv1-3.pdf. See also Wayne Coste, “Red/Gray Chips, 10 Years Later,” Truth Action Project, 27 April 2019, at https://www.911tap.org/10- publications/news-releases/802-red-gray-chips-10-years-later

Millette’s paper far from debunks the findings of the Active Thermitic Material paper. But even if that were the case, the evidence of demolition for the Twin Towers and Building 7 would still be substantial, as well as other non-demolition issues.31

31 John-Michael Talboo, “What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement if James R. Millette Proves Nano-thermite Wasn’t Used to Take down the WTC Towers on 9/11?,” Debunking the Debunkers, 5 February 2012, at 911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-does-it-mean-for-911-truth.html.

...

For a balanced take on this topic, see John-Michael Talboo, “A 9/11 Debunking Video Worth Considering,” Debunking the Debunkers, 6 August 2009, at http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/debunking-video-worthconsidering.html. 89

Related:

TTR32: DEBUNKERS AND TRUTHERS ARE BOTH WRONG ABOUT THE COLLAPSE TIMES OF THE WTC BUILDINGS ON 9/11

TTR EPISODE 24: JM TALBOO INTERVIEWS PHYSICS TEACHER DAVID CHANDLER ON THE UPCOMING 'CONFERENCE ON THE 9/11 PENTAGON EVIDENCE'

TRUTH TELLER'S RADIO EPISODE 16 - 9/11/2018 JM TALBOO INTERVIEWS RICHARD GAGE ABOUT THE 3000+ ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

TTR 32: DEBUNKERS AND TRUTHERS ARE BOTH WRONG ABOUT THE COLLAPSE TIMES OF THE WTC BUILDINGS ON 9/11

 Adam Taylor comes out of retirement to debunk everyone! ;)



http://truthtellersradio.blogspot.com/

Adam Taylor has been researching the events of 9/11 since August of 2007. He's a former contributor to the blog "Debunking the Debunkers of the 9/11 Truth Movement." He's also worked as a contributing writer and researcher for sites such as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and ScientificMethod 911.org. He's the author of the online AE911Truth.org multipart essay "Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality."

New paper written up, which touches on a topic I wrote about before on the blog.

https://911docs.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/clarifyingcollapsetimes1.pdf

Also, while researching for it, found a paper published in the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=89496

The lead author, Ivan Nemec, is a member of Scientists for 911 Truth.

https://scientistsfor911truth.com/ivan-nemec

He has another paper on the WTC published in a journal here:

http://www.davidpublisher.org/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=3888.html

Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth:

https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html

Host Info:

http://mindtreasury.blogspot.com/2019/10/jm-talboo-activist-blogger-paranormal.html

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Obama Deception Dollars and Obamaless Perception Dollars - Plus Proof That They Can Be Effective

Click to Enlarge
 

My proof is that a morning walk laying the earlier versions of these about landed me some pretty decent newspaper coverage! 

Cryptic handouts circulate Kennard


THIS IMAGE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AND FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH appeared on the bills distributed in Kennard.

Page A-1:
TUESDAY, FEBRUARAY 17, 2009

More:


Sunday, September 11, 2022

UPDATED PEER-REVIEWED PAPER

From blog contributor Adam Taylor:

Some very good news to report. I'm happy to announce that a second version of my journal article has been published. Just in time for the 21st anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, an updated, second version of my paper has been accepted and published by the International Journal of Engineering and Techniques.

Adam Taylor, "Review of Literature Regarding Progressive Collapse of WTC Twin Towers – A Call for Re-evaluation (Updated Version 2)," International Journal of Engineering and Techniques 8(5), September 2022: 27-38  DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7062258



I've updated it to include more studies, corrected some typos from the first version, added more references, and overall strengthened its core premise. 

The journal was very kind enough to publish this update, and I thank them enormously for doing so. The information presented here is very important, and with the anniversary of the attacks coming up, hopefully it will be seen by many people, both in the general public and the academic community.

Also, Rick Shaddock posted it at his website listing other peer-reviewed 9/11 papers.


911DEBUNKERS.BLOGSPOT.COM PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED ENGINEERING JOURNAL---9/11=INSIDE JOB

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Debunker Interviews 911debunkers.blogspot.com Contributor Adam Taylor

Thanks to both of you for each saying the URL here.



TFTRH 16: Adam Taylor – Retired 9/11 Truth Activist

Sunday, March 31, 2019

IS ADAM GREEN A MOSSAD AGENT ??? - Retarded to see comments like "Owen got destroyed!!" .....fuk sake he brought Adam on to HIS [Infowars] show and let the man bring it. Props to Owen.

Is Adam Green an Israeli intelligence officer ? doing some background checks indicate he did have a career in telecommunications involved in data collection and spying. he was also allowed into Israel which as we know is a big RED FLAG to anyone that knows anything about Israels border security and intelligence gathering agencies.



YTCensorsMe Poop
“I can’t believe you’re having me on”. Talk about paranoia. Alex figured this out long ago. You want to take down the enemy, you don’t bring religion or race into it. Why do you think he calls them GLOBALISTS, it’s much smarter strategy. Where can I see an unedited version where Owen actually talks.


Editor's Note: As I've stated regarding another topic...
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-ugly-truth-about-cultural-marxism.html

To those who always scream JEWS!

Who cares, fight the agenda. MANY Jewish people do not push it and and/or fight against it. There are also of plenty of non-Jews who do push the agenda.


Green says that the only people we should be talking about celebrating on 9/11 were the infamous 5 dancing Israelis. However, a careful examination of this article...

Trump Is Right: Video Describes How Jersey City Muslims Held PRE-PLANNED 9/11 Rooftop Celebration: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2016/01/trump-is-right-911.html

...will reveal that many Muslims did in fact celebrate on 9/11 and we get this interesting tidbit...

A WCBS newscast broadcast 6 days after the attacks, details how FBI investigators revealed that some muslim suspects living in an apartment building in Jersey City held a PRE-PLANNED rooftop party on the day of the attacks.
The task force investigators even stated that the suspects had a detailed model of the Word Trade Center, the type architects use, on the rooftop with them, along with binoculars.

As far as I can tell from the details we have about the Israeli incident compared to this, we are very well talking about different but similar situations...

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11:
https://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

In any event, that it was Muslims is what the report states, so Trump and Infowars are just reporting on that and related facts. They have covered the dancing Israelis and a ton of other evidence for Israeli involvement in 9/11 in the infowars produced film Fabled Enemies. Furthermore, Jones is not incorrect in stating Saudi Arabia played a major role...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2016/03/rogue-elements-of-us-and-other.html

Who had the most involvement is a hotly debated topic.
R S
Furthermore, how did this Adam dude school Owen? Y'all are living in an echo chamber. Adam just spoke over him almost the entire time. Btw, I don't listen to Jones much. I'm not a sycophant like you guys.

FallenJedi
He was unprepared...Adam wasn't. I would have went after Adam's failure to ever criticise Islam or it's pedophile prophet and that by his own logic he is a shill for Mohammad.

President Goyim
Adam lost me when he banned me for saying GDL stuff. Nothing weird . No appeals.

He lost me more when he got a strike and spoke of fighting censorship, this cannot stand that they were "targeting" him, and all I could do was scowl, for this guy who banned me was two facing it to YOU guys faced. Something was shady and when Jake Moohony arse and Adam suddenly appeared in Israel, had a great vacation, and came back 100% UNMOLESTED by Israelis, I KNEW the fix was in. These two were in Israel to get put on the Zionist payroll so they will discuss all the Israeli EVILS, but never discuss organizing, taking action, protesting, etc.

Essentially, they were gonna be the SANCTIONED voice of the opposition. One more gatekeeper that will only take you so far and then "forget" to discuss ACTION...


Related:

I do not support or oppose Israel totally, it's a mixed bag, like with all countries and humans...

Will Trump Drain His Own Administration of 'Swamp' Creatures? - Trump’s recognition of an Israeli Golan Heights (seized from Syria in 1967) draws little enthusiasm from those who live there - Rep. Ilhan Omar: Riding The Third Rail - With Guest Phil Giraldi (Liberty Report) - Palestine Hasn't Controlled That Disputed Region Since the Early 1880s and 1900s, Let This One Go and Saudi Arabia Should Allow Them In
https://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2019/03/will-trump-drain-his-own-administration.html

No Real Evidence that Alex Jones is an Agent, Wikileaked Evidence to the Contrary:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange recently released a stockpile of emails from the Texas based think-tank STRATFOR in the latest action bringing private information public. The emails were thought to have been obtained from the group Anonymous, a collection of hackers that have gained recognition over the years for hacking large corporations and government networks.  Alex Jones is mentioned in one of the secret emails from STRATFOR where he is described as a “lunatic”. The email reveals they wished he would have dropped the Osama bin Laden staged death story and “stopped complaining”. Far from being an operative, their private internal emails show he is considered a thorn in their side.
https://slipcatchers.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/truther-taylor-myth-debunked/

Joe Rogan is right about Alex Jones being right about a lot and more than he knows... 

http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2018/12/joe-rogan-is-right-about-alex-jones.html

Friday, December 20, 2013

BBC Parades out Debunked Sources to Refute ReThink911.org Campaign


The BBC recently published an article on the ReThink911.org campaign entitled, "Canadians wary of 9/11 explanations - and of US officials," which trotted out several debunked sources that we're very familiar with around here, so for anyone who might find their piece here is some further reading.

"Frank Greening, a nuclear scientist who lives in Hamilton, Ontario, knows the people behind the organisation - truthers, as they are known - well. He first met them years ago."- BBC

From blog contributor Scootle Royale's Top 10 Debunker Fails:
1) Frank Greening's 'Intelligent Thermite'

In an attempt to reconcile the thermite evidence with the official story, debunker Frank Greening once proposed that aluminium from the planes reacted with rust on the steel structures, "inducing violent thermite explosions", and that this "repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction", resulting in the global collapse of the towers. In other words, he proposed that the twin towers were destroyed by thermite ... naturally!

In 2006, Gordon Ross responded to Greening's thesis in a hilarious essay entitled Sorry Dr. Greening et al ...
Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.
As both a 9/11 truther and a Darwinism heretic, I find the fruit crumble analogy and 'intelligent malevolent thermite' designation doubly scrumptious. It is hard to believe anyone with the slightest semblance of rationality, never mind a professional chemist, would seriously suggest such a thing, but what do you expect from someone who denies Newton's third law?!
"His research was hardly shocking. It has been backed up by plenty of other experts, including those at Popular Mechanics who published a special report called Debunking the 9/11 Myths." - BBC

Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality

I am happy to announce that my latest article is finally available online! My newest work, titled Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality, is a point-by-point refutation of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings. If you thought Popular Mechanics' updated 2011 book refuted the so-called "conspiracy theories" about 9/11, think again.


Download Part 1 now at: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/604-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html
Part 2: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/612-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-2.html
Part 3: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/622-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-3.html
Part 4: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/634-debunking-the-real-911-myths.html  
Part 5: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html
Part 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/668-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html

Part 7: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html

Part 8: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/683%20%20-debunking-the-real-911-myths-.html
Part 9: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/748-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality.html 
NEW! Part 10: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/766-debunking-the-real-911-myths-part-10.html 
Editor’s note: This is Part 10 of 10 (see Part 9), the conclusion of an extensive report by 9/11 researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by the writers and editors of Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold. (Quotes from PM are shown in red and with page numbers.)
"Jonathan Kay, an editor at the National Post and author of Among the Truthers, said 9/11 conspiracy theories resonate for a reason." - BBC

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

From ReThink911.org:

ReThink911 Keeps Building 7 in the Headlines

Let the BBC Editor Know the Public Doesn’t Buy Their One-Sided Coverage

Plus: NY Times Billboard Continues through December!

Metro News Ottawa Article
Yesterday the BBC published an article about the ongoing ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa. Featured on the BBC’s News homepage still today, the article has been seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.
This piece marks the fifth mainstream news article about ReThink911’s Ottawa campaign since the announcement of the campaign on November 20. But unlike its Canadian counterparts, the BBC has a tendency for falseness and one-sidedness rivaled only by the likes of Fox News.

Tell the BBC Editor Their Reporting Is a Journalistic Disgrace

Please take 2 minutes right now to let the Editor of the BBC’s North America edition know how you feel about their reporting. Just copy-paste the letter below, or write your own. Please be sure to Bcc us at AE911Truth so that we can keep a count of how many emails are sent.
Dear Ms. Milne,
The BBC’s article on the ReThink911 ad campaign in Ottawa is a journalistic disgrace. The number of false claims and one-sided maneuvers is simply astounding.
Most disturbing is how the article falsely labeled Jonathan Kay and Popular Mechanics “experts,” while neglecting to quote a single one of the 2,100 engineering and architecture experts who are so critical of the official account that they are demanding a new World Trade Center investigation. In addition, the article provides links to every source it references that supports the official account of 9/11, but not a single link to a source critiquing the official account.
With regard to the poll commissioned by ReThink911 and conducted by the polling firm YouGov, the article falsely, groundlessly calls it “unscientific,” and then conveniently neglects to embed or link to the 30-second video shown to the poll respondents. It seems rather obvious the video would be of interest to your readers.
The article disrespectfully caricatures 9/11 activists by likening the group in Hamilton, Ontario to terrorists belonging to a “cell,” and the article does not mention even once the name of the ad campaign – or its website ReThink911.org.
If your goal was to mislead the public about the very serious pursuit of truth regarding the events of 9/11, congratulations, I would say you succeeded admirably – except I think most people can see through this atrocious, unabashedly one-sided “reporting.”
If you care at all about preserving the BBC’s journalistic integrity, I would suggest you make up for this horrible disservice to the public with an article that gives equal and unbiased attention to the more than 2,100 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation into the destruction of Building 7.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]

NY Times Billboard to Continue through December

Finally, we are thrilled to inform you that we have extended our NY Times billboard through the end of December for an absolutely rock bottom price. Our audacious billboard continues to greet reporters and editors on the way to work everyday. Soon we will be announcing new actions to hold the NY Times accountable for its lack of coverage of Building 7. Stay tuned!
Thank you as always for your tremendous support!

Friday, September 20, 2013

Uncritical vs. Unbiased Reporting: An Email to Joel Mathis

Below is an email I sent to Joel Mathis of phillymag.com on 9/12/2013, regarding his criticism of Paul Kurtz's coverage of the ReThink911 campaign.
______________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Mathis,

My name is Adam Taylor. I am a 9/11 activist and a contributing writer and researcher for several 9/11 truth websites, including Debunking the Debunkers, AE911Truth, and ScientificMethod911. Having read your recent Philly Post article, I'm very disappointed to see that you have offered an unfair and misinformed criticism of Paul Kurtz's coverage of AE911Truth's ReThink911 campaign. It's obvious that, contrary to what you claim of Mr. Kurtz, it is in fact you that has provided an uncritical assessment of the issues surrounding the events of September 11th. Allow me to enlighten you to a few of your errors that is quite unbecoming of someone who claims to be a journalist. 

For starters, your entire criticism of Mr. Kurtz's article as failing to provide "counterarguments" to AE911Truth's position is entirely unfounded. True enough, the article does only discuss the group's position on the collapse of the WTC buildings. But why is that such a bad thing? Is Mr. Kurtz required to present every viewpoint on the collapse of these buildings? While Mr. Kurtz provides no criticisms of AE911Truth's work, nothing in the article necessarily endorses their position either. It could be that Mr. Kurtz agrees 100% with them. But nowhere does he say that in his article. He does not state his own opinion, but merely reports on the event in an unbiased manner, which is exactly what a professional journalist should do. Perhaps you believe that the mere mention of the group is uncritical endorsement, and that Mr. Kurtz should not have done so. If this were the standard practice of all journalists, they would likely have very little to comment on. 

But ironically, your article provides us with a perfect example of what uncritical journalism actually looks like. You provide two examples of supposed "debunking" of the truth movement's claims. Your first example is Popular Mechanics, and it seems that along with Rachel Maddow you've placed a disturbing blind faith in their analysis of the movement's arguments. Popular Mechanics has long been responded to by many people within the 9/11 truth movement, including Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, and AE911Truth founder Richard Gage. I myself have written an extensive multi-part response to Popular Mechanics' latest version of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths. By your own standards, shouldn't you have mentioned these "counterarguments" in order for your article to be considered an "honest report"? And just how honest is this source of yours to begin with?

It's unlikely that Popular Mechanics has much to say about the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, given that they've largely ignored them. In their previously mentioned Debunking 9/11 Myths book, there is not one mention of AE911Truth or its founder Richard Gage. Now it's one thing to give no mention of this group, but it's another thing to deny its existence completely. And that is essentially what Popular Mechanics has done. In their book they actually claim that "not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Keep in mind that this book was published in 2011, and by this time AE911Truth was comprised of around 1600 professional architects and engineers. Does Popular Mechanics sound like it's presenting an honest assessment of the truth movement? I provide a summary of other omissions and distortions in their book here

Your second example, Rational Wiki, fairs no better. While no critique of their entire 9/11 conspiracy page exists to my knowledge, much of what they discuss has already been addressed by the movement as well. Simply type in any subject they bring up into the search engine at Debunking the Debunkers and you'll find answers to their arguments. But the specific section of their page you link to shows just how uncritical the writers of that site are. They fail to note that NIST's WTC7 report has been exposed as extremely erroneous, and contains a multitude of deceptions and misrepresentations. Did you bother to critically analyze either of these sources? And if not, then what justifies your criticism of Mr. Kurtz  supposedly doing the same thing?

As I said at the beginning, it's very disappointing to see the position you've taken on this issue. You criticize Paul Kurtz for giving the movement an "unchallenged platform" (which, by the way, it's really not; that's what the comments section is for), whilst all that he has done is provide an unbiased coverage of the group's efforts to get a new investigation into the collapse of the three WTC buildings. Rather than show that Mr. Kurtz was wrong for giving them uncritical coverage, your article gives off the impression that he was wrong for giving them any coverage at all. You conclude your article by saying that:
It’s one thing to raise questions: That’s the job of journalists. When there are people who offer different, credible answers on those questions, it’s also the job of journalists to present those.
The media has for many years presented the government's scientific assertions about the collapse of the WTC. Now it's AE911Truth's turn. The group presents exactly the kind of "different, credible answers [to] questions" that you talk about. And it's no one else's fault except yours if you fail to see that. I recommend that you issue a formal apology to Mr. Kurtz for your unfounded criticism of his reporting and journalism methods. I hope you will take my comments into consideration, and do exactly what AE911Truth's campaign is encouraging people to do: re-think 9/11.

Sincerely,

-Adam Taylor

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Dr. Harrit´s Aluminum Data


John-Michael Talboo and Ziggi Zugam cover the whole Harrit VS Millette debate in an essay written for Mark Basile´s fundraising effort: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-you-should-make-donation-at.html

Part IV: The Elemental Aluminum. So, how does Dr. Millette justify the lack of replication? He essentially states that further testing is unnecessary because there is "no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite." Millette claims that the plates of silicon and aluminum inside the chips are kaolin, which is a clay material that happens to be a common ingredient in paints. But as we have previously noted, Millette is probably not studying the same material as Harrit et al. - and in this case Millette may have found kaolin because he is focusing on the paint chips also present in the dust, despite Kevin Ryan´s specific warning. Kaolin plates may look very similar to coated aluminum platelets, but Millette finds kaolin plates as thin as 6 nm while Harrit et al. report consistent platelets "approximately 40 nm thick." Millette and his sponsors should have known that they could expect to find the aluminum in the correct chips hidden inside a protective coating based on silicon. They have failed to read the excellent references that Harrit et al. cite, including this one which explains that the coating is "essential to protect aluminum nanopowder.." and that it "leads to better dispersion...and more uniform mixing." The protective layer not only promotes efficiency, it also prevents air-oxidation and humidity from deactivating the elemental aluminum, which explains how the chips could remain active for so many years.

Harrit et al. agree that their chips contain aluminum and silicon together in the same space, but how do they determine whether or not the two chemicals are separate or chemically bound together as kaolin? As we note in Part II, when you compare the signals for Al/Si before and after ignition, you see that the peaks no longer have the same ratio after ignition and that the aluminum is relatively depleted, which is not consistent with a compound. And the team discovered that MEK paint-solvent induces swelling in their chips that segregates the silicon from the aluminum, which proves that they are not chemically bound together, so the plates in their chips are not kaolin. This is confirmed with chemical analysis and clear visual representations, but the "debunkers" ignore this important result. They claim that the main chips studied (chips "a to d" depicted in fig.7) are LaClede primer-paint that contains kaolin, and that the MEK chip is another type of paint (Tnemec) that does not have kaolin. Adam Taylor notes in his March 2011 article that the source for this MEK hand-wave is Sunstealer´s March 2011 post where he announces that the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip (fig.14) looks very similar to the spectrum for Tnemec primer-paint. But as Taylor explains, the XEDS spectrum for the MEK chip represents the unwashed and contaminated surface, while the spectra for the other chips represent clean surfaces. The contaminants happen to make the unwashed MEK chip look like Tnemec, but Sunstealer´s rationale is essentially pretending that there is no contamination. 
 
ScootleRoyale´s excellent March 2012 article also demolishes Sunstealer´s premise for this theory, because the unwashed surface of all the studied chips had a spectrum similar to the unwashed MEK chip according to one of the authors of the study, including the chips featured in the paper (in figure 7). ScootleRoyale also demonstrates to Oystein how untenable the MEK hand-wave is by noting the fact that the MEK solvent does not dissolve or soften the chip, unlike confirmed Tnemec chips: "The reason Harrit et al. soaked a chip in MEK was to compare the result to Tnemec primer!" 

Talboo and Weathers also demonstrate in their May 2011 article that Sunstealer´s MEK Hand-wave is an obvious failure because there is no elemental aluminum in Tnemec, only aluminum bound to calcium. Tnemec also contains zinc, but the MEK chip only has Zn and Ca as surface contaminants which disappear after the wash in the MEK. Talboo and Weathers respond to Oystein´s objections to Taylor´s article, including his claim that Harrit et al. simply could not register Zn and Ca with their equipment settings for the recorded spectra after the MEK soak. Unfortunately for Oystein, his fellow JREF´er has debunked his claim and confirmed that Harrit´s equipment would have registered the Zn and the Ca. Talboo and Weathers also note that Dr. Farrer debunks Oystein´s claim that they mislabeled Zn as sodium(Na). According to Farrer, the sodium "peak that is found in fig 18 was confirmed by the absence of the Zn k-alpha peak at 8.637keV (and yes, the same exact spot was analyzed at a beam energy of 20kV and the Zn k-alpha peak is still not present)." Farrer goes on to say that "while it is true that the Na k-alpha peak (1.04keV) overlaps the Zn L-alpha (1.012keV), it is pretty simple to confirm which element is present."

After soaking the MEK chip, Harrit et al. focus on an area with a lot of aluminum to figure out if there is elemental aluminum present. They confirm the presence of elemental aluminum with the XEDS spectrum in figure 17, stating that "a conventional quantification routine" demonstrates "that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio)." Figure 17 also demonstrates that the post-soaking MEK chip has a very strong aluminum signal without any Ca or Si present for bonding, so the MEK chip cannot be Tnemec or LaClede, and the conclusion of elemental aluminum is inescapable. See the articles Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Paint Dry..., Listening to Debunker Arguments is Like Watching Two Coats of Paint Dry..., Millette Versus Harrit et al: The MEK Test, and Oystein's Contamination Denial for more information, and keep in mind Dr. Jones´s message to Sunstealer et al.:
Look, Oystein, why don't you put a sample of Tnemec primer in MEK and soak it, and see whether it becomes limp (as I say) or remains very hard under forceps? Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! Experiments are much more convincing in science than hand-waving arguments.
 
Denis Rancourt has suggested that the XEDS sample-holder provides the aluminum signal, but Harrit notes that their control experiments prove that "the electron beam couldn’t even penetrate the carbon conductive tab used as substratum..." In other words, "the Al/Mg scaffold was never hit in any of the spectral recordings published in the article." Harrit also mentions that they have unpublished TEM analysis where "the samples were mounted on a copper holder and these measurements also confirm the presence of aluminum." According to Dr. Jones, their unpublished analysis via TEM and XRD is consistent with their previous (MEK test) conclusion of ruling out kaolin, but he notes that the new tests have not resulted in conclusive identification of pure aluminum - According to Jones, the aluminum might be in an amorphous form that is difficult to detect.

Basile plans to introduce one new test method (ESCA small spot technique with argon ion sputter) to directly establish the presence of unbound aluminum. Basile also plans to confirm aluminum by having an independent laboratory repeat the ignition tests, in air and inert atmosphere. He notes in a December 2012 interview (at 37m.55s.) that the chips will most likely also ignite in an inert atmosphere, and that even if they do not, that this test will still reveal any elemental aluminum since it will melt and leave a signature endothermic peak at a certain temperature. ScootleRoyale notes in his March 2012 article that that two of Harrit´s air-ignited samples have an endothermic peak around the 660 degree(C) melting point of aluminum, which is another strong indication of elemental aluminum:


 
"Notice how two of the traces go into the negative at around 620-670 degrees celsius. A small endothermic peak in this temperature range is characteristic of aluminium melting. This suggests that even after the reaction, there was still some elemental aluminium left over in those chips, which then melted." - Scootle
 
The fact that the chips actually work when ignited is also a very strong indication of elemental aluminum, according to one of Harrit´s co-authors, Dr. Frank Legge. Dr. Legge, who holds a PhD in chemistry, has stated that:
 
...The existence of elemental aluminium in the red chips is proven by the formation of the microspheres in the DSC, largely iron. What else can start to rip the oxygen out of iron oxide at below 400 deg C, then have a runaway temperature increase at least to the melting point of iron? Those who dispute this on the grounds that oxygen was present, and that the energy came from the combustion of organic material, must provide an explanation for why such special conditions are required in a blast furnace to produce iron. The idea that you could heat a little kaolin and coke and iron oxide to a mere 400 deg C and see it suddenly run away and produce molten iron is clearly a fantasy. http://www.thepotteries.org/shelton/blast_furnace.htm