"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"
This list is being spammed all over social media, with the claim that their 24 "hard facts" can't be debunked.
The very first fact is an instant fail (Jones' paper has never been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal, as far as I'm aware Benthams is a vanity publisher that prints in exchange for payment), as is the second. How many more of these "hard facts that cannot be debunked" can you debunk? ;) 24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked January 18, 2013 by Joe Martino
|
#7 - OBL was already wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.
There was no need for the FBI to include the 9/11 charges prior to OBL's capture and/or death. |
Quote:
The total investigation cost over shadows the "BJ" investigation by orders of magnitude. |
The list should be titled:
"Here's 24 things about 9/11 that we're going to pretend haven't already been addressed." |
Holy flashbacks. I swear it's 2006 again. This has been a banner year for complete rehashings of nonsense that was already debunked.
|
I've come to the sad conclusion that lying is pathological.
|
Number 2 is not a fact about 9/11, it is a fact about people who have a strong opinion about 9/11.
Their opinion is also number 2. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As you noted, the first one's an instant fail, and for many more reasons than just painfully poor peer review. Just look up Sunstealer's posts and you'll have all the stuff you'll need. Heck, just look up R.Mackey's posts, and all that by itself will give you all that you need, even before 9/10ths of the other posts on the topic here - from Oystein, from The Almond, from many others, including some by myself, etc., - are thrown in, many of which have info of excellent value (Chris Mohr's posts, for example).
The second is sort of an obvious statement: There are fools in the world who'll believe anything, and some of them have professional credentials. I guess you can go through and critique the list by pointing out the lack of relevant expertise, the inflated numbers, and so on, but really, that's one I wouldn't even address. When you establish that the party line is chock full of wrong, you then don't even have to address any list of believers. You've already addressed their argument. And that's all that matters. The rest of the list has stuff that's been on sites like 911Myths, Debunking 9/11, Gravy's site, etc. since 2006. That "set up to fail" quote is one I've personally refuted in the past; just look up my old posts in conjunction with Hamilton and Keane's names. Ditto for the FBI vidoes; we've discussed that ad nauseum in this forum. Yeah, this is nothing more than just old claims packaged in a nice, simple list. All of which have been addressed (my God, I can't believe the resurrected the "Put Options", the incorrect "free fall" time, etc., all of which again has been addressed. Evangelization. Not information. Par for the course. |
Quote:
|
Time to first lie:
#1 - nanothermite in the dust has been debunked. Those making the declaration that it is thermitic failed to show the basic property of such materials, that they are self oxidizing and can thus burn in a no oxygen environment. In fact each of these 24 points either is not a hard fact and has been debunked already, or has little actual relevance to the subject in the first place. |
Quote:
When I first saw thermite promoted as a controlled demo agent I laughed, I couldn't believe anyone would be that stupid, but I overestimated thruther collective intelligence. |
Correction: "24 delusions about 911 that make 911 truth followers dumber than dirt"
Quote:
Self debunking Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The lie that stands out the most for me is that 7WTC collapsed in 6.5 seconds. Its as if the internal collapse, illustrated only after it had begun by the in falling of the rooftop structures, is not part of the collapse. Its a most dishonest piece of sophistry. Then there are the details left out that are inconvenient to the TM, such as greater than free fall acceleration noted of 7WTC.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have yet to see any detailed scenario in which it is explained how ?therm?te was utilized. If the idea was to drop these structures in such a fashion as to limit collateral damage to neighboring complexes, then how was a ?therm?the demolition timed? Of course super-secret-duper nanothermite was only ever invoked because no where on any recording is there the sound of explosives large enough to sever large columns. Supposedly ssd-nanothermite not only severs columns as quickly as rdx cutters, it does so without causing the huge bang conventional cutting charges make. Yet there was enough 'leftover' of this substance, to heat the rubble underground (while never flaring up at the surfsce) and keep it hot enough to have liquid stage steel around for weeks and that is the only way molten steel coukd develop and remain. Pie in the sky, unsubstantiated, bald assertion put forth as if it were fact. |
Quote:
The portland woo from April 2013 post if freely. Is this reflective of the IQ of the readers? http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/04/422646.shtml Source of the plagarized 24 nut case claims... by Joe Martino, January 18, 2013. http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ Proud to spread woo, he does it to promote peace and love, by spreading lies based on nonsese. http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/...t-be-debunked/ Veterans news now gives a bad name to veterans. What an idiotic publication. Spammed all over, albeit slowly. No Pulitzer for recycled failure? Is the level of woo reflective of the readers of http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/...t-be-debunked/ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/04/422646.shtml http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-gr...d-2439522.html Feb 2013 http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ Quote:
Ignorance personified on 911. 12 years of ignonrace on 911, an unknowing puppet in Gage's propaganda wing of woo. Don't forget, "Feel free to email me (him) at http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/. Dear Joe, ... |
Quote:
I went to Joe Martino's website - he's seriously into the realm of 9/11 Hollywood fantasy. |
Quote:
|
The biggest lie with this list is the claim of "24 hard facts". Indeed some points multiple claim like
Quote:
"The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds)." As mentioned by some others, this claim is wrong. "Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”." This claim has been debunked long ago. "Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage." This is a strawman argument as it wasn't that the three towers collapsed due to fires or structural damage but fires AND structural damage. "Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane." Although this claim is true, it leaves out that 7 WTC was hit by debris from the North Tower. This scheme continues until the end of the list. This end itself is priceless: "24) At least 7 of the 19 listed highjackers are still alive (BBC)." This claim was debunked in 2001. |
Wow...hot tub time machine...is it 2006?
Question...will ArchStanton return? Or was this a one shot troll post? MHM |
What the hell?!
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sheesh. |
Quote:
USS Liberty incident: Not a false flag - the aircraft and torpedo boats that misidentified and attacked the USS Liberty were clearly marked as Israeli. No war occurred, and within hours of the incident Israel was apologizing. Gulf of Tonkin Incident: Not a false flag - On August 2 the North Vietnamese Navy and the USN did have a brief altercation, and on August 4, the USN did fire on more NVN vessels. The initial incident was the result of misinformation and bad target identification by the USN (a sonar operator mistaking the sound of the ships propeller for a torpedo, etc.). Op Northwoods: Had it actually been carried out this would have been a false flag event (or rather events). The plan was rejected and never implemented. The Murrah bombing(OKC Bombing): McVeigh and Nicols have claimed to have acted in concert to do the deed, and the damage was consist with their stated means (fertilizer bomb). There is no evidence that would suggest that the two were compelled to do so. Not a False flag. the 93 WTC Bombing: AQ's first kick at the cat - straight up terrorist attack. Patrick Clawson: An economist with no connection to government policy making says something stupid (ie that America provoke Iran into a war). Other than the fact that this guy got some press, how is it different from the drunk guy at the end of the bar muttering about those [insert category of persons here]? PNAC Report: recommended that the US miltary be reformatted to be able to fight and win a two theatre war (among other recommendations). Having the capability to do something is not the same thing as doing the thing. Sort of like critical thinking and the person who created this list - they have the capability of doing so, but chose not to in favour of writing a list of 24 point that can be debunked.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
by "inspiring others to find joy and make changes in their lives. Hands down the only other thing I am this passionate about is baseball." Baseball and spreading woo. Poor Joe, 12 years and can't figure out 911, but able to spread woo and have people repost his failure. Has anyone emailed Joe? |
Quote:
They are all claims without demonstrated "relevance" - unless they are shown to be both true and relevant they are pointless speculation. By relevance I mean "If the fact is true what does it change about 9/11 explanations and how does it effect those explanations." Now most members here will enjoy responding to "Is the claim true" at a technical level of detail. Let me illustrate by reference to #1 "Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero." Let's take the two aspects - and "Is it relevant?" first. The only relevance to 9/11 explanations is if nano-thermite was used in CD of the WTC buildings. There was no CD. So even if there were 100 tonne stockpiles of thermXte in any form on ground zero at each corner of the twin towers - there was no CD. So it wasn't used for CD. So it is irrelevant. And that is valid logic despite the facetious way I express it. Put slightly more rigorously. There is no plausible hypothesis in favour of CD. Even if presence of thermXte is proven that is only one link in a causal chain of CD. The finding of thermXte does not of itself prove CD. The big challenge of "proving CD" remains and it has never been demonstrated, not even a plausible hypothesis to prima facie standard. So #1 is defeated on grounds of relevance. BUT sadly from my perspective most members here wont accept that simple fact. They enjoy the detailed technical arguments and don't like simple facts which pre-empt the need for technical discussion. "They" (both sides :rolleyes:) want to be convinced whether the claim for thermXte in dust is true or false. No matter how many times we point out that it is irrelevant most people won't get the message and will merrily go pursuing the truth in the details which is precisely where the truthers want to keep the debate. And going round in circles. Is it true? (even though it is irrelevant! :rolleyes:)We have several threads related to dust. And an extensive lot of research into the scientific analyses. All of it pursuing the path that the truthers want us on. Chasing details round in circles. No doubt good science. No doubt to me that there was no thermXte in the dust. But irrelevant to WTC 9/11 collapses. Folk have lost sight of the fact that the only reason we are discussing thermXte is that one S Jones was losing "market prominence" to one R Gage and he needed a "rebranding" to raise his "market presence". He partly succeeded,. He is still way behind Gage in "exploiting the market" So I'll >>> [/endpersonalrant] :blush: :D You will see where I am coming from. And everyone of the 24 fails the relevance test independent of whether the single item of the claim is true or false. |
#24 has been debunked since about the end of September 2001.
|
Quote:
Footballs are spherical and the game played with bat and ball has the initial letter "C" :runaway |
#13 Leslie Robertson did say the towers were built to withstand plane impacts (which they did) but he also has said the towers were NOT designed to withstand intense fires from the burning jet fuel etc. Oops.
|
Time to First Lie: First point.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What a complete *********** disaster of a list.
|
Quote:
Do you have a link to where this evidence that the 7WTC tower collapse exhibited "greater than free fall speed acceleration " is noted and documented ? Why exactly would you feel this fact would be inconvenient to the "truth movement" ? |
Here you go Fonebone.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com....php?tag=wtc+7 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s.php?tag=wtc7 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...g=wtc+7+report http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=wtc7+collapse http://www.internationalskeptics.com...tag=WTC7+fires Your answers are there, ad nauseam. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.