Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Jon Gold Debunks Debunking 9-11

How are the Popular Mechanics guys going to respond to this substantive debunking of their book?

It occurred to me after reading his responses that it wasn't Popular Mechanics that the family members lobbied to investigate the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information regarding the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was recently called "Derelict in its' duties."


Yep, that's what Jon Gold thinks is a debunking.

37 Comments:

At 27 September, 2006 07:56, Blogger Good Lieutenant said...

If that's the best they can do against PM, then PM hit the mark harder than any of the Twoofers want to admit.

Of course, they admit nothing that doesn't subscribe to their slipshod narratives, zealous denials of factual information and presentations of hard evidence, so that isn't saying very much.

Nicely done, PM. They are reduced to psychobabbling about imaginary "derelictions of duty."

I love it.

 
At 27 September, 2006 08:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Admittedly, I have never read Popular Mechanics' book. Wait a second. What's Jon pulling? How can he debunk a book without even reading it?

that's a very good question, mr. gold. Too bad he never gets around to answering it.

 
At 27 September, 2006 08:32, Blogger MarkyX said...

I'm going to swear for a moment, because my standards of humanity have been lowered once again.

That man is fucked up.

 
At 27 September, 2006 08:41, Blogger ScottSl said...

It seems like 911blogger has been getting more desperate lately. The debunking is clearly getting to them.

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:00, Blogger James B. said...

Uhh, could someone please point me to the debunking part?

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:13, Blogger Manny said...

Uhh, could someone please point me to the debunking part?

Well, you have to understand that these are people who think that "pull it" means "demolish it using controlled demolition which we somehow snuck into a fully-occupied office building." So "debunking" probably means "getting out of bed."

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:34, Blogger Cassiopeia said...

Actually Jon Gold performs an important role for the twoofers. If anyone mentions PM in a debate now they can say 'nuh-uh that Popular Mechanics has been like totally debunked man.'
That it's complete crap is neither here nor there to them.

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:42, Blogger Pepik said...

It gets even better. As one of Gold's fans says:

"The Popular Mechanics stuff debunks itself. Why? Because it exists."

Yes, you read that right. How can that make sense? Simple:

"That constitutes a recognition that the voluminous official reports are useless, and if those reports are useless, further "explanations" are needed to plug up the huge gaps in the official fairy tale."

 
At 27 September, 2006 09:44, Blogger telescopemerc said...

Actually Jon Gold performs an important role for the twoofers. If anyone mentions PM in a debate now they can say 'nuh-uh that Popular Mechanics has been like totally debunked man.'
That it's complete crap is neither here nor there to them.


Indeed, the last big 'debunking' of the PM article was little more than a bunch of goalpost moving. They essentially conceded most of the points, but then complained that what was debunked was not 'maintstrem'.

There's also about 1/2 dozen troothers who have tried to 'debunk' the Loose Chage readers guide. Essentially all they did was go 'Oh really?!' for the first 10 minutes of comments on the movie, then complained that he was boring them becuase he wasn't talking about Building 7. They forgot that he was only able to talk about the stuff the movie was talking about, and that movie takes long time getting started.

What happened to that 'debunk screw loose change' guy who couldn't even put a sentence together?

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:04, Blogger Alex said...

Heh.

"WE WANT ANOTHER INVESTIGATION!"

followed by

"Hey man, the fact that a second investigation was done proves that further 'explanations' are needed to plug up the huge gaps in the official fairy tale. Therefore the second investigation debunks itself."

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:16, Blogger CHF said...

Hey twoofers,

how about a point-by-point rebuttal to PM's claims?

That's what PM did to your theories and what Mark's viewers' guide did to Loose Change.

"Oh yeah, well you suck," isn't a debunking.

This whole 9/11 debate is an even bigger mismatch than the Six Day War.

I also love how they claim that PM debunked stuff that no one believes when in fact twoofers make the debunked claims all the time!

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:30, Blogger Stevew said...

This was a debunk? They say they want another investigation. Who would they get? There have been investigations done by real experts in the relative deciplines. Maybe AJ and his band of baffoons could do it?

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:30, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 September, 2006 10:53, Blogger telescopemerc said...

"That constitutes a recognition that the voluminous official reports are useless, and if those reports are useless, further "explanations" are needed to plug up the huge gaps in the official fairy tale."

They ignore the troothers = "they can't discuss our claims! The holes are too big for them to debunk."

They discuss the claims = "They needed to do this to cover the big holes in the story!"

Heads I win, tails you lose.

 
At 27 September, 2006 11:02, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 September, 2006 11:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hi, gang. I'm Ronald Wieck, the guy who hosted Les Jamieson on 'Hardfire.' I've been posting on 911blogger.com, but I just got banned for being too easy to refute.

If you enjoyed Jon Gold's thoughtful defense of his carefully crafted position on the thread he started, check out the full brilliance of the fantasy movement in the threads dealing with Norman Mineta's testimony and an earlier one on some clown's affadavit concerning...well, concerning SOMETHING.

 
At 27 September, 2006 11:56, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

welcome Ron:

I recognize your username from 911blogger. Good to see you over this way. You notice all the questions I answered over a Conspiracy Smasher, after they kept at one of us to do so. Not one response since I answered them. Seems once you call their bluff you find out they don't have much beyond "the questions".

TAM

 
At 27 September, 2006 12:08, Blogger ScottSl said...

Its always fun to make them look stupid!
I was shocked they kept you around that long.
Great work!

 
At 27 September, 2006 12:35, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hi, Scott. I'm amazed that they kept me around for as long as they did. I know that loons don't tolerate dissent, but I lasted for over a week. Frankly, I was getting tired of repeating myself. I wonder why they pulled the plug after I had already done my damge.

 
At 27 September, 2006 12:36, Blogger pomeroo said...

TAM and Scott, does anyone know Jon Davies? He said some nice things about me and fought the good fight.

 
At 27 September, 2006 13:30, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Ron:

I do not, but if anyone knows who they are, and if they are part of the Debunking group, Pat or JamesB would likely. We'll see if they can find out.

TAM

 
At 27 September, 2006 14:19, Blogger 911coverup said...

Pomeroo, in the mineta testimony, which plane was cheney giving orders to shoot down? AA77 or UA93? Cuz I swear I remembered you said UA93 in 911blogger.

 
At 27 September, 2006 14:28, Blogger MarkyX said...

I believe it was AA77, considering they were talking about the Pentagon I believe.

 
At 27 September, 2006 14:31, Blogger MarkyX said...


Frankly, I was getting tired of repeating myself.


So are we Ronald.

So are we.

 
At 27 September, 2006 14:39, Blogger 911coverup said...

There were several things I had problems with the mineta testimony. Why would a guy inform cheney the incoming plane is getting closer every 10 miles and asked him if the shoot down order still stand? If given the shoot down order, is it neccessary to ask more than once if the order still stand? And why did the 9/11 commission changed the time of cheney's arrival at PEOC from approx. 9:20 to 9:58? The pentagon impact occured at 9:37, completely contradicting the entire mineta testimony as if it never happened.

 
At 27 September, 2006 15:52, Blogger Richard said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 September, 2006 15:56, Blogger Richard said...

Why would a guy inform cheney the incoming plane is getting closer every 10 miles and asked him if the shoot down order still stand?

Well if you knew a dangerous object was about to hit somewhere and you knew a shoot down order was in effect wouldn't you be a bit CONCERNED that it hadn't been shot down yet?

I don't see how you can't understand that.

 
At 27 September, 2006 16:19, Blogger pomeroo said...

Cheney was talking about Flight 93, but he, of course, didn't know the flight number. Nor did he know that it had already crashed.

 
At 27 September, 2006 17:37, Blogger Pat said...

Hi Ron/Pomeroo! You're one of our heroes; your controlled demolition of Les Jamieson is still the gold standard of debunking; superb job!

 
At 27 September, 2006 17:41, Blogger debunking911 said...

Just to let people know, reprehensor (Who the author talks about) is a libertarian "scholar" called Wade Inganamort. He infutrates liberal web sites to push his government hating take on 9/11. He also own libertythink.com. His other names are Metamars and Valis. When confronted he will try to sound like a liberal libertarian.

 
At 27 September, 2006 17:54, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Are we still on this same old stuff...the "Shoot down" crap...OMG...the worst thing, is the argument is with same people that we have had the same argument with 500 times already.

Same topic...same people...zzzzzzzzz

TAM

 
At 27 September, 2006 19:50, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, thanks, Pat! The funny thing is, I really didn't know all that much about the subject when I hosted the show with Jamieson. He'd have a rougher time now.

 
At 27 September, 2006 20:13, Blogger Pat said...

Well, you definitely had the better strategy and tactics; I've argued that Debunkers must move off defending the official story and get the Deniers talking about their own theories, which anybody will find quite wacky. You forced Jamieson to do that with some particularly clever rhetorical tricks. Impressive as hell!

BTW, I would like to interview you for a piece on Libertarians and 9-11 Denial; please send me an email at the screwloose addy shown on the front page of the blog.

 
At 28 September, 2006 05:51, Blogger 911coverup said...

Pomero

Ahhh now I see why you got banned from 911blogger. Congratulations on getting banned, by the way

 
At 28 September, 2006 15:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 29 September, 2006 21:38, Blogger Blogmaster said...

The right answer is simpler than anyone has mentioned, so far as I have seen.

Stop wasting your time on Jon Gold's website. All you're doing is (a) giving him notoriety, (b) sending website hits his way, and (c) keeping him visible. Let the nutcakes and tinfoil-hat wearers hang out over there and IGNORE him. His website hits will drop to the hardcore maniacs and they will have no reason to keep going.

Acknowledging insanity like 911blogger.com only serves to feed it.

 
At 29 September, 2006 21:38, Blogger Blogmaster said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home