Who Feels Like Debunking a Debunker Debunker?

OldTigerCub · 30th January 2008, 04:59 PM

Poster Paulie C. has put up a link at 911blogger 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".

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...

Corrected with strike-through.

ElMondoHummus · 30th January 2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by OldTigerCub

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

Hey! No internetting while driving!!!

Cl1mh4224rd · 30th January 2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by OldTigerCub

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

Ohh, the irony...

OldTigerCub · 30th January 2008, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Hey! No internetting while driving!!!

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

Reality Believer · 30th January 2008, 05:20 PM

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

dudalb · 30th January 2008, 05:26 PM

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

dbalsdon · 30th January 2008, 05:28 PM

Quote:

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

One error:

Quote:

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

Anti-sophist · 30th January 2008, 05:49 PM

Check out this priceless quote:

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 · 30th January 2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

Check out this priceless quote:

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 · 30th January 2008, 06:21 PM

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

beachnut · 30th January 2008, 06:21 PM

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 and it is still warm.

Unsecured Coins · 30th January 2008, 06:28 PM

I have only one thing to say.

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

Reality Believer · 30th January 2008, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

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 · 30th January 2008, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

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

Even harder for a reptilian

jaydeehess · 30th January 2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

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 · 30th January 2008, 09:36 PM

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

plumjam · 30th January 2008, 09:39 PM

All this debunking.

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

OldTigerCub · 30th January 2008, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by JamesB

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 · 30th January 2008, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins

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....

Furcifer · 30th January 2008, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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!

Anti-sophist · 31st January 2008, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

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

Mel Odious · 31st January 2008, 08:36 PM

I liked this part:

Quote:

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 ...

MIKILLINI · 1st February 2008, 03:44 PM

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 · 1st February 2008, 03:51 PM

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.

30th January 2008, 04:59 PM	#1
OldTigerCub Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Steeler Nation, Pa. Posts: 1,633	Who Feels Like Debunking a Debunker Debunker? Poster Paulie C. has put up a link at 911blogger 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". Quote: 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. Quote: 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... Corrected with strike-through.
	__________________ "Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe Last edited by OldTigerCub; 30th January 2008 at 05:53 PM.

30th January 2008, 05:07 PM	#2
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Quote: I realize that the Popular Mechanics "Debunking" book is old hat and has been rebutted by many." Originally Posted by OldTigerCub My eyes are tired from driving, so I haven't thoroughly read the rest of his post yet... Hey! No internetting while driving!!!
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

30th January 2008, 05:10 PM	#3
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by OldTigerCub The link to his essay is http://911disinfo.blogspot.com Ohh, the irony...
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 30th January 2008 at 05:10 PM.

30th January 2008, 05:15 PM	#4
OldTigerCub Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Steeler Nation, Pa. Posts: 1,633	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Hey! No internetting while driving!!! It's ok...I turned on the cruise control and have curled up on the back seat for a nap....
	__________________ "Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe

30th January 2008, 05:20 PM	#5
Reality Believer Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: So. Cal Posts: 720	Debunking a Debunker Debunker? That is triple debunkity! A federally protected right in most states and Puerto Rico.
	__________________ "Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

30th January 2008, 05:26 PM	#6
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,792	Disinfo:The Truther's term for all evidence that blows the 9/11 conspiracy crap to hell.

30th January 2008, 05:28 PM	#7
dbalsdon Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 323	Quote: If you spot any errors, please notify the essay writer, Paul Conant, at Znewz1@Yahoo.com. One error: Quote: <--- Insert whole essay here --->

30th January 2008, 05:49 PM	#8
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	Check out this priceless quote: 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.
	__________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire Last edited by Anti-sophist; 30th January 2008 at 05:49 PM.

30th January 2008, 06:04 PM	#9
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by Anti-sophist Check out this priceless quote: 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...

30th January 2008, 06:21 PM	#10
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	How much bunk could a debunker bunk if a debunker could debunk bunk?

30th January 2008, 06:21 PM	#11
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	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 and it is still warm.

30th January 2008, 06:28 PM	#12
Unsecured Coins Hoku-maniac Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: in your macaronis. warming my feets Posts: 5,741	I have only one thing to say. someone try to say "debunking a debunker debunker" 3 times really fast
	__________________ *http://kcbastards.com/* "If God wants 10% of my paycheck, he can get it himself. Or at least work for it -Kochanski "I may not be easy, but I am fast." - Hokulele "Oh CRAP... DQ!!" - Ol' Hokey, yet again

30th January 2008, 08:40 PM	#13
Reality Believer Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: So. Cal Posts: 720	Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins 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!
	__________________ "Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

30th January 2008, 09:01 PM	#14
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,803	Originally Posted by Reality Believer Took me over 3 minutes, and I'm not even republican! Even harder for a reptilian

30th January 2008, 09:04 PM	#15
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,803	Quote: 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

30th January 2008, 09:36 PM	#16
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	Jones posted in the comments that he wants him to submit it for his journal, yeah, it is definitely PhD dissertation quality.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

30th January 2008, 09:39 PM	#17
plumjam Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 7,837	All this debunking. Can someone please finally explain to me what is so wrong with having one bed on top of another?

30th January 2008, 10:27 PM	#18
OldTigerCub Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Steeler Nation, Pa. Posts: 1,633	Originally Posted by JamesB 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]
	__________________ "Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe

30th January 2008, 10:30 PM	#19
OldTigerCub Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Steeler Nation, Pa. Posts: 1,633	Originally Posted by Unsecured Coins 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....
	__________________ "Nuts!" - General Anthony C. McAuliffe

30th January 2008, 10:39 PM	#20
Furcifer miscreant Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hohm Posts: 13,379	Originally Posted by dudalb 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!

31st January 2008, 06:08 AM	#21
Anti-sophist Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 1,542	Originally Posted by Reality Believer Took me over 3 minutes, and I'm not even republican!
	__________________ A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

31st January 2008, 08:36 PM	#22
Mel Odious NWO Public Relations Dept. Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Behind the times and proud of it Posts: 589	I liked this part: Quote: 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 ...
	Last edited by Mel Odious; 31st January 2008 at 08:37 PM. Reason: punctuation

1st February 2008, 03:44 PM	#23
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,875	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.
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

1st February 2008, 03:51 PM	#24
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	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.