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.
posted by James B. @ 12:59 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
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.
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?
BG, if you have an actual argument to make, please feel free to make one.
It would be a first.
Yeah, I have lectured him on his spelling before. ;-) Actually, I have noticed a few in mine too. The facts are well checked though.
BG is a moron. I used to think he was more, but that's all he is.
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.
shawn,
Life is full of dissapointments I guess, Shawn. I think you are simply smashing as well.
You haven't demonstrated any honesty, bg, so your pontifications fall on deaf ears.
Your schmaltzy little act doesn't fool anyone either.
Bingo.
I am heading to Dallas tomorrow to see Morgan Reynolds speak. Does anybody have a question they would like me to ask him?
You need a credit card!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
BG, want me to ask my dad which gate Flight 11 left from? I think he'd know more than you.
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.
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?
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.
cfh,
'you've stated that the 9/11 phone calls could not have been made.'
I never said anything like that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home