Friday, July 21, 2006

Introducing, The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

About a month ago, the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" created an on-line journal titled "The Journal of 9/11 Studies". Apparently, since they have been unable to get any of their "research" published in any respectable academic journals, they have created one of their own, subject to their own review, and their own dubious academic standards.

An examination of this journal finds it to be completely lacking in academic merit, with easily debunked papers (in particular see the Flying Elephant paper) based on Internet rumors as much as scholarly research. It is not credible that these papers underwent any serious "peer review" as the scholars claim they did.

Well, a few of us debunkers found this ridiculous, so we decided to start our own journal, titled "The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" to counter their weak attempts at academic rigor. I personally contributed towards two of these papers. So if you have some free time to read, enjoy.

44 Comments:

At 21 July, 2006 14:29, Blogger CHF said...

I love it.

This means the "scholars" will take every debunked 9/11 CT out there and put them all in a book as a lasting testiment to the idiocy of this "movement."

I hope they've got the all-time faves in there.

- the hijackers are still alive
- Pentagon hit by a missile
- 16 foot hole at the Pentagon
- all wreckage was planted
- plane swapping
- no planes at all
- pod theory
- the fake flight 93 crash
- cell phones don't work and you need a crefit card for air phones
- free-fall collapses
- controlled demos that don't sound like a CD
- .....or look like a CD
- .....or behave like a CD (steel bending prior to collapse)
- a CD that can be prepared in a few hours during a power-down (in only 1/3 of the buildings)
- you need to melt a building's structure in order for it to fail
- lots of quote mining
- "Pull it"
- top-secret Jewish agents...who danced on the top of a van
- 1% of reliable witnesses versus 99% "unreliable"
- Islamic terrorists don't exist
- suicide bombers are all Jews
- Barbara Olson is still alive
- critics of the CTers are government agents
- the world's structural engineers and CD experts are all cowards and/or stupid

I hope they even include some of their awsome experiments like Judy Wood's "billiard balls" or even that "mini-WTC" from DU.

 
At 21 July, 2006 16:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I have created many documents on various CT claims, but as they usually fact and evidence based rebuttal, they likely don't qualify as research or legitimate papers. As a result, unlike Scholars, where anything goes, I will not be submitting them. When and If I can do some legitimate research in a field I feel I am qualified to speak on, then I will do so, and perhaps sumbit. Til then, I'll just keep looking for the real evidence, and presenting it when I find it.

 
At 21 July, 2006 16:52, Blogger BG said...

I just briefly reviewed the article:

http://jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf

I have only one question: Who is paying you to waste your time to do such shoddy work?

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:17, Blogger James B. said...

BG, if you have an actual argument to make, please feel free to make one.

It would be a first.

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:28, Blogger default.xbe said...

i did notice D9/11 misspelled "consider" on the bottom of page 2, he spelled it "conceder"

(i was copy editor for my school newspaper for 2 semesters, and did a lot of proofreading as an english tutor, lol)

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:29, Blogger undense said...

Good ol' bg. He can proclaim loudly that something is shoddy work, he just can't explain why. And when asked REPEATEDLY to explain anything he hikes up his skirt and runs away.

You're the typical blustery CT, bg. All wind and no sails.

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:45, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, I have lectured him on his spelling before. ;-) Actually, I have noticed a few in mine too. The facts are well checked though.

 
At 21 July, 2006 17:45, Blogger shawn said...

BG is a moron. I used to think he was more, but that's all he is.

 
At 21 July, 2006 18:48, Blogger BG said...

James,

You make a fair point.

I think I'm witnessing poor attempts at parody, which as you pointed out, along with satire, can be effective in persuasion. I'm sure it makes for many feel good points for those of you who are so self-righteous that you mock honest attempts at dealing with this most shameful episode of govt. irresponsibility in American history.

 
At 21 July, 2006 18:49, Blogger BG said...

shawn,

Life is full of dissapointments I guess, Shawn. I think you are simply smashing as well.

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:10, Blogger undense said...

You haven't demonstrated any honesty, bg, so your pontifications fall on deaf ears.

Your schmaltzy little act doesn't fool anyone either.

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:12, Blogger shawn said...

You haven't demonstrated any honesty, bg, so your pontifications fall on deaf ears.

Your schmaltzy little act doesn't fool anyone either.


Bingo.

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:18, Blogger BG said...

I am heading to Dallas tomorrow to see Morgan Reynolds speak. Does anybody have a question they would like me to ask him?

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:21, Blogger apathoid said...

Does anybody have a question they would like me to ask him?


Yes. What does he think of the 125,000 members of the ASCE who do not support his theories..

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:29, Blogger CHF said...

Here's a good question for ya, BG:

"Mr. Reynolds, some guys on the net have me in a jam over that whole "airphone/cell phone" thing. I tried to avoid answering for a while but it's not working. What do I say, oh great one???"

To which the answer will be:

"Mr. BG, tell them there were no planes. Thus no phone calls."

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:34, Blogger shawn said...

You need a credit card!

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:48, Blogger undense said...

Yeah, bg. Ask him why CTs run away when confronted with questions.

 
At 21 July, 2006 19:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

When he starts rallying the crowd with "9/11 was an inside job", and then says "the twin towers came down because of controlled demolition" ask him to quote just one study outside of the "scholars" studies that proves his claim.

 
At 21 July, 2006 20:16, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, ask him how much longer he can pretend to be a Bush insider based off of 16 months as a mid level academic staffer compiling unemployment reports for the Department of Labor.

 
At 21 July, 2006 20:32, Blogger James B. said...

Yes. What does he think of the 125,000 members of the ASCE who do not support his theories..


Apathoid, don't spread disinformation. There are 139,000 members in the ASCE which don't support his theries.

A fact you can find by the way in my Evidence: Part II paper.

 
At 21 July, 2006 22:11, Blogger BG said...

cfh,

I think you know this... in case you don't.

The "No-Plane" argument is not about the idea that no passenger planes with the alleged deceased were in the air on the morning of 9/11. So, your question about the cell phone calls makes no sense.

There is interesting discussion about which flights took off as described. In particular, I think there is one flight (possibly Flight 11), that seems to have departed from both gate 26 and gate 32.

The no-planer argument is most focused around the WTC. It can be expanded, and I think Reynolds may have legitimately claimed that there are good reasons to doubt the Pentagon and the Shanksville crashes.

I was testing to waters to see of the commenters here would show any hint of carrying on a discussion. I got my answer.

 
At 21 July, 2006 22:19, Blogger BG said...

James,

When I referred 911 Eyewitness, I made an argument. When I referenced Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror, I made and argument. In the case of Tarpley's Book I don't think you have following up.

You refuse to concede that the idea of debating here, as if this were some formal groups of experts, is ludrious. My argument has consistently been that your assertions, Pat's assertions, other's assertions that Loose Change and other alternative takes of 9/11 are bunk in no way tip the scales against my alternative contention that the investigation that has be performed by official agencies is insufficient for anyone to go with Bush's silly line:

Let no one speak of Conspiracy Theories. or some BS to that effect.

You are correct I have used my time wisely and avoided addressing your post line by line. In many cases, your recent posts have lose any trail of talking about the evidence and discussion of the evidence. Your pattern has not been about finding the truth: it has been in fact about how much you can call CT's crazy fools. As much as you chide others here making ad hominem argument, this blog is more of an ad hominem piece of crap than anything else.

 
At 21 July, 2006 23:07, Blogger Alex said...

My argument has consistently been that your assertions, Pat's assertions, other's assertions that Loose Change and other alternative takes of 9/11 are bunk in no way tip the scales against my alternative contention that the investigation that has be performed by official agencies is insufficient for anyone to go with Bush's silly line

In other words, you argument is..."I have no idea what happened, but I think the government is full of it, and there's nothing you can do to prove oterwise".

Well, thanks for being candid. Now that you've admited that there's nothing we can do to change your CT mindset, you may as well go away and continue your "research" into how the apollo capsule crashed into the pentagon during pearl harbour. Have fun!

 
At 22 July, 2006 00:11, Blogger ScottSl said...

More bg meltdown...... shallow insults....etc.

 
At 22 July, 2006 04:07, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Here is what typically happens BG. A CTer will pose a piece of so called "evidence" which 90% of the time is the same evidence that has been put up for discussion before. As always, after this is done, the Debunkers, if you would call them, Reply with a number of arguements, backed by evidence, to disprove the claim. Then the Cter will usually come back with some comment like, "I amazed that you guys still fail to see 'The Truth'", and then the mudslinging begins.

 
At 22 July, 2006 05:58, Blogger undense said...

You refuse to concede that the idea of debating here, as if this were some formal groups of experts, is ludrious.

How would you know, bg? You've never, ever tried to debate since day one. You link-spamm the comments section and then refuse to discuss any details or look at the issue in depth. Or you put out a bulleted list of claims and then refuse to discuss the details to see if those claims have any merit, when you HAVE to know that at least some of them have no merit before you even list them. It's as if you don't want anyone to burst your little fantasy bubble so you seem to think that by plugging your ears you can avoid having that happen.

Nothing you post has any credibility in here because you have established no credibility. Instead you come off appearing to be nothing more than a troll, and not even a clever one.

 
At 22 July, 2006 06:53, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

There is interesting discussion...

BG,

Amongst conspiradroids, NOTHING you folks say is "interesting." It is paranoid, silly, foolish, witless, often unintentionally funny and almost always fact-averse.

 
At 22 July, 2006 08:18, Blogger Chad said...

BG, just FYI. Linking to movies is not how grown-ups debate and argue.

Although, I'm starting to form a theory that the reason 99% of CTers don't want a live debate (whether on the radio, TV, etc...) is exactly for that reason. They can't link to conspiracy websites or Alex Jones movies or use condescending emoticons and childish pictures. Therefore, they'd be dead in the water.

There is the 1% that shows up at Ground Zero every weekend, but they're pretty easy, even if they have a binder filled with pretty pictures of buildings on fire. It took Abby and I about 20 minutes to reduce a self-proclaimed physicist to whining, snarky 13 year-old last weekend.

 
At 22 July, 2006 08:45, Blogger BG said...

Chad,

Movies come in various shapes and sizes. 911 Eyewitness and Loose Change may share the attribute that they both are vehicles to question the 9/11 official story.

However, 9/11 eyewitness is significant and worth your time (if you care about the truth) in various ways that Loose Change is not. Let me list a few:

1) It contains the thoughts and descriptions of a witness talking about the first hand video that he shot.

2) It provides a timeline, and documents that timeline, with the WINS radio broadcast.

3) It limits its treatment to the WTC, and doesn't try to draw from a huge variety of claims, quotes, etc.

I'm not saying that one movie is right and the other wrong.

Howver when you attack me about not debating or arguing the point of what should be taken as the "truth" by saying I'm just referencing a movie, you are being the worst kind of dickhead.

The fact is that anyone, watching 911 Eyewitness, has the opportunity to get to the heart of the matter on many of the issues. As James and Pat have acknowledged, it is interesting and informative.

In recommending it, I didn't expect it to change the minds of those of you who seem to be hell bent on defending the lies of our govt. I did think any intellectually honest person would realise that maybe they have been too quick to come to a final conclusion that questions about what happened on 9/11.

I think my best argument here or anywhere is showing how completely deceptive you and other are being when you had already made up your minds, and when presented with information that would legitimately call into question some of your assertions, you simply assert your conclusion in a louder, and more ad- hominem way.

Futhermore, the Tarpley book: 911 Synthetic Terror, has much to say on the matter of 9/11 as well. Even if you disagree with that book's conclusions, you presence here on this blog as a commenter, and your presence on this Earth, would be more justified if you were more aware of the content contained in that book.

The idea that my comments here arguing my case can somehow replace your own reading of Tarpley or other works on the subject of 9/11 is pure folly, and I have avoided the waste of that time in the main.

 
At 22 July, 2006 09:15, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

For what it is worth, Bg, I'll try to get access to that movie you speak of, i assume through Google Video, and watch it.

 
At 22 July, 2006 09:16, Blogger shawn said...

BG, want me to ask my dad which gate Flight 11 left from? I think he'd know more than you.

 
At 22 July, 2006 09:18, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

you've stated that the 9/11 phone calls could not have been made.

We showed you how that's nonsence.

Thus, your theory is nonsence.

Comprende?

 
At 22 July, 2006 09:25, Blogger Chad said...

BG, we've all been on commenting on this site now for a couple months. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but you tout Eyewitness like a born-again touts the Bible.

Regardless of what the topic is, you seem to always reference that movie. Not 100% of the time of course, but often enough to make me question whether or not you're even considering the arguments Pat and James make here.

It's become your Old Faithful Argument. Kind of like Nessie's reliance on the evil Jews.

 
At 22 July, 2006 10:04, Blogger Alex said...

I think my best argument here or anywhere is showing how completely deceptive you and other are being when you had already made up your minds, and when presented with information that would legitimately call into question some of your assertions, you simply assert your conclusion in a louder, and more ad- hominem way.

You need to present some information first, glue-bag. Link-spamming does not equal presenting information. I have absolutely zero desire to check out ANY of the material you link to simply because of the brainless way in which you present it. If, perhaps, you had brought forwarded one of the arguments from the film, and then explained and defended it in a logical manner, I'd be interested enough to go check it out. But when the best that you can do is equivalent to saying "Duuuhhh...looky, pretty planes in da mooovie!", why would anyone waste time clicking your links?

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:00, Blogger undense said...

The idea that my comments here arguing my case can somehow replace your own reading of Tarpley or other works on the subject of 9/11 is pure folly, and I have avoided the waste of that time in the main.

Arguing your case by proxy is not aruging your case. That's the problem. You DON'T argue YOUR case. You post links to others and hunker down behind those links. That's not your case, that's the case made by others and it's also a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority (though the authorities you cite are even suspect as any kind of "authority)".

If you want to admit you're little more than a shill for those others and that you use them as a front to conceal the fact that you really don't know the issues in any depth, please do so. That I could believe. But don't jerk us all around under the pretense that YOU are arguing anything. You aren't. All your unwillingness to engage the issues does is make for the impression that you don't know nearly as much as you boastfully claim you do.

Prove me wrong on anything I've stated above bg. As of yet, you've failed to prove anything you've ever claimed in here. I won't be holding my breath though because you've already demonstrated what kind of person you are. Your lack of response on your own behalf and your incessant handwaving and bluster speaks louder than any words you can type into a blog's comment section. It's very obvious you are unwilling to discuss any details because you know full well your little fantasy conspiracy theory will be destroyed. So rather than face up to that you'll ignore any reality that blocks your way.

Sad little man.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:33, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So, BG, I am half way through this "Eyewitness Video".

(1) Insane theory that somehow a helicopter caused WTC2 to come down.

(2) like most CT videos, they constantly bring up the explosions...What would you expect from a towering inferno.

(3) If anything, this video is a GREAT VIDEO to dispute the "free fall speed" claim, as if you watch it closely, you can see that well after the TEN SECONDS most CTs claim, you can see large segments of the tower still falling, and falling slowly, jagged steel columns (goto the 38:18-38:22 and see some of this fall to the left of the screen, than a short time later see something similar fall slowly in the center. 38:26-38:32)

According to this video, WTC2 starts falling at 37:57, and stops at about 38:32 (35 seconds)

You may have found us just the proof we need to kill the free fall theory.

I'll let you know if anything comes out of the second half.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:37, Blogger BG said...

cfh,

'you've stated that the 9/11 phone calls could not have been made.'

I never said anything like that.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:41, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:43, Blogger BG said...

The Artistic Macrophage said..

Thanks for watching.

I respect that your or anyone has issues with it.

Refer to debates here and elsewhere about what should be made of the evidence in the video. I don't have any interest in rehashing it here.

My contention is not that 911 Eyewitness "proves" anything. I'm not even qualified to say that the vid is authentic.

However, you simply are being dishonest if you claim that the American public has been provided anything near a reasonable hearing of legimate concerns. This is a failure of our govt. It is a massive failure of any honest main stream media.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:47, Blogger undense said...

Refer to debates here and elsewhere about what should be made of the evidence in the video. I don't have any interest in rehashing it here.

Translation of the above: bg can't debate it because he knows he'd be destroyed if he tried. So he side-steps making any debate effort to avoid watching his fantasy beliefs go straight down the crapper.

Keep up the pretense, bg. You are fooling only yourself.

 
At 22 July, 2006 11:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I understnad your arguement and frustration Bg, but with an attack that complex, involving so many events, and variables, the questions would be endless.

Lets say, lets just say, that Griffin's questions (like 100 or so) that he asks of the commission to readdress, get readdressed. I guarentee you within 6 months there will be someone else with 100 different questions demanding answers, and a stack of CTers behind him.

All the questions will never be definitely answered, so we take all the reasonable evidence we have, and let the EXPERTS in the various fields, give us the most likely cause/series of events that occured.

 
At 22 July, 2006 13:32, Blogger Alex said...

However, you simply are being dishonest if you claim that the American public has been provided anything near a reasonable hearing of legimate concerns. This is a failure of our govt. It is a massive failure of any honest main stream media.

A resonable hearing of legitemate concerns? What legitemate concerns? "There was no airplanes"? You call that a legitemate concern?

Before you can expect your questions to be addressed, you have to figure out what your questions ARE.

Right along side with that, the government has absolutely ZERO responsibility to answer any of your questions. The FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Comission reports were NOT created to answer any of YOUR questions. They were created in order to explain to proffesionals in various industries exactly how they can better do their jobs in the future in order to avoid a repeat of 9/11. That's it. Where in the hell did you come up with the idea that the government owes YOU some sort of explanation? All they had to say was "we've been attacked, Al Qaeda did it, we're going to war", and even that much would be pure curtesty. It's not the governments job to explain to you just why your insane theories are RTFO. If you really want though, a good psychiatrist should be able to do that without much difficulty. The government has better things to do than deal with lunatics who think the CIA blew up the WTC and used holographic projectors to make it look like airplanes did it.

 
At 22 July, 2006 13:41, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

right, because you're too cowardly to post your own opinion you hide behind "unanswered questions" even after they're answered.

You think the phone calls were a hoax and you're full of it.

 
At 22 July, 2006 21:40, Blogger debunking911 said...

I'm galde to see no one debating the contents of the paper. Aside from the hand waving that is.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home