Who Feels Like Debunking a Debunker Debunker?

[OldTigerCub]

Poster Paulie C. has put up a link at 911blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/13618) advertising his own blog and a post thereon that takes a crack at debunking the Mechanics Illustrated Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts".

I realize that the Popular Mechanics "Debunking" book is old hat and has been rebutted by many. However, the book is still prominently displayed in chain book stores and so I thought it worthwhile that someone with a journalistic background go over some of the problems in the Hearst book.

Please see my essay

The link to his essay is http://911disinfo.blogspot.com

Scanning through his blog post, it looks like most of the usual twoofer bad science that we see so much of, though he does get off to a good start, and by that I mean humorous, with one thing I had not seen before. He asks how the hijackers knew it wasn't going to rain.

How could pilots with very poor training have managed to execute the 9/11 attacks so precisely? Hearst writers have the answer: The hijackers "did not have to perform what flight-training professionals consider to be the three most difficult aspects of flying: taking off, flying through inclement weather, and landing."

So say Popular Mechanics writers in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Hearst Books, 2006). Though several of the alleged hijackers reportedly were certified for instrument flying, the PM writers seem wary that the men could have pulled off such sensational maneuvers in bad weather. But, wonders British journalist Ian Henshall, in 9/11 Revealed: the New Evidence (Carroll and Graf, 2007), how did the hijackers know it wouldn't rain?

I personally got a good chuckle from that. My eyes are tired from driving, so I haven't thoroughly read the rest of his post yet, but I thought I'd point it out for anyone who feels like killing a little time pointing out his errors, something he actually invited, by the way....

Edit: I incorrectly named the magazine as Mechanics Illustrated instead of Popular Mechanics...:blush:
Corrected with strike-through.

[ElMondoHummus]

I realize that the Popular Mechanics "Debunking" book is old hat and has been rebutted by many."

:dl:



My eyes are tired from driving, so I haven't thoroughly read the rest of his post yet...


Hey! No internetting while driving!!! :eek:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The link to his essay is http://911disinfo.blogspot.com


Ohh, the irony...

[OldTigerCub]

Hey! No internetting while driving!!! :eek:

It's ok...I turned on the cruise control and have curled up on the back seat for a nap....:p

[Reality Believer]

Debunking a Debunker Debunker? That is triple debunkity! A federally protected right in most states and Puerto Rico. :)

[dudalb]

Disinfo:The Truther's term for all evidence that blows the 9/11 conspiracy crap to hell.

[dbalsdon]

If you spot any errors, please notify the essay writer, Paul Conant, at Znewz1@Yahoo.com.

One error:

<--- Insert whole essay here --->

[Anti-sophist]

Check out this priceless quote:


This is a false claim. The NIST did not say the damage was inconsistent with explosives or bombs. The agency did not investigate that possibility (except for a "small bomb" scenario that is essentially irrelevant).

I love that parenthetical expression.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Check out this priceless quote:

This is a false claim. The NIST did not say the damage was inconsistent with explosives or bombs. The agency did not investigate that possibility (except for a "small bomb" scenario that is essentially irrelevant).

I love that parenthetical expression.


Hey, yeah! NIST didn't say the damage was inconsistent with an infinite number of scenarios, both probable and fanciful. That's not how science works! Very suspicious...

[Jonnyclueless]

How much bunk could a debunker bunk if a debunker could debunk bunk?

[beachnut]

The truth movement is moving into its bigfoot stage. I wonder if they will ever find scat from bigfoot.

I was wondering where all the 9/11 truth scat was to prove 9/11 truth exists! You have found it. http://911disinfo.blogspot.com (http://911disinfo.blogspot.com/) and it is still warm.

[Unsecured Coins]

I have only one thing to say.

someone try to say "debunking a debunker debunker" 3 times really fast

[Reality Believer]

I have only one thing to say.

someone try to say "debunking a debunker debunker" 3 times really fast
Took me over 3 minutes, and I'm not even republican!

[jaydeehess]

Took me over 3 minutes, and I'm not even republican!

Even harder for a reptilian

[jaydeehess]

So say Popular Mechanics writers in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Hearst Books, 2006). Though several of the alleged hijackers reportedly were certified for instrument flying, the PM writers seem wary that the men could have pulled off such sensational maneuvers in bad weather. But, wonders British journalist Ian Henshall, in 9/11 Revealed: the New Evidence (Carroll and Graf, 2007), how did the hijackers know it wouldn't rain?

Obviously "The Weather Network" was in on it!!!!!111!1eleventy!11

[JamesB]

Jones posted in the comments that he wants him to submit it for his journal, yeah, it is definitely PhD dissertation quality.

[plumjam]

All this debunking. :confused:

Can someone please finally explain to me what is so wrong with having one bed on top of another?

[OldTigerCub]

Jones posted in the comments that he wants him to submit it for his journal, yeah, it is definitely PhD dissertation quality.

PEER Reviewed!!!!1!!!!111! [twoofer mode] take taht debunckr3s!!!!![/twoofer mode]

[OldTigerCub]

I have only one thing to say.

someone try to say "debunking a debunker debunker" 3 times really fast

I twied....I huut my tounne....:boggled:

[Furcifer]

Disinfo:The Truther's term for all evidence that blows the 9/11 conspiracy crap to hell.


You owe me a keyboard and a beer dudalb! A Canadian beer! :D

[Anti-sophist]

Took me over 3 minutes, and I'm not even republican!

:wackylaugh:

[Mel Odious]

I liked this part:

This point is almost silly: "Not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction or related fields." Physics is not considered a related field apparently. And what of computer science? After all, the government explanation of the fall of the twin towers relies on a computer simulation.

In other words:

A computer expert is qualified to assess/critique the work of structural engineers because structural engineers use computers.

Okay ... :rolleyes:

[MIKILLINI]

Leave it to the twoofers who can't dispute the evidence...so they come up with an unanswerable question. A question that most likely had no bearing or contemplation in a terrorist mindset.
It could be just like asking a twoofer if a tree falls in a forest and no one was around to hear it, would it still make a sound? I would bet there was a long pause before they answered.

[pomeroo]

Ask the clown why it is impossible to find a champion of Da Twoof who has the stones to face Mark and Arthur Scheuerman on "Hardfire." I thought the collapse of WTC 7 was an "obvious" demolition. There must be somebody who can make the case.