To Jared Israel:
March 18, 2008
March 17, 2008
Justin A. Martell has called attention to a 911blogger post by Aidan Monaghan, Debunking Popular Mechanics?: PM Book Alleges FAA Source For Statistical Data; FAA Concedes No Such Data Records Exist.
March 16, 2008
These past couple of days, I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking at a very interesting website called The Emperor’s New Clothes, authored primarily by Jared Israel. In 2001, it was one of the first websites to publish a bunch of articles questioning 9/11.
March 14, 2008
March 12, 2008
Needed: More scientists and engineers. And more teamwork. And better peer review.
I just now heard about the following, on 911blogger: A Proposal for Proving Controlled Demolition in a Civil Negligence Suit Against the Security Groups Responsible for the WTC.
In my opinion, this is WAY premature. We are NOT yet anywhere near ready to prove any such thing in a court of law, not even in a civil case.
March 11, 2008
March 8, 2008
March 7, 2008
In a comment in reply to my post Hiding the planting of incendiaries, explosives, or whatever? Response to a common a priori objection, “realitydesign” wrote:
“Can you tell me one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?”
Comment by ref1 — February 14, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
One thing that stands out is the 4 verified WAR GAMES on 9/11 facilitating the ensuing documented confusion in terms of (not) responding adequately.
Indeed there certainly were war games (military exercises) on 9/11.
However, there has been some debate about what the war games imply.
March 6, 2008
Below is a copy of a bunch of comments originally posted in reply to my post Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement. I’m deleting them there and moving them here because the comments are about WTC no-planes theories.
Please note: Here on this blog, comments on the topic of no-planes theories should be posted only in response to this and other posts in the no-planes theories category, and not underneath any other posts.
Hiding the planting of incendiaries, explosives, or whatever? Response to a common a priori objection
Below is a copy of a long bunch of comments I’ve deleted from the thread below my post He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.
The copied comments below deal mainly with the question of how thermite, etc., could have been planted in World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 without being noticed by many witnesses.
The comment area below this post will be the proper place, here on this blog, for general gripes about about the 9/11 Truth movement, to avoid having such comments clutter up threads below posts on more specific topics.
Note that there are already other posts dealing with common a priori objections by opponents of the 9/11 Truth movement. Please post your comment there if directly relevant to one of those posts. Otherwise, you may post it here.
The comment area below this post will be the proper place, here on this blog, for general gripes about about me, my blog, and my comment policy, to avoid having such comments clutter up threads below posts on other topics.
Below is a slightly edited copy of three sections of my very long post Common a priori objections by “debunkers,” including arguments from authority and the “someone would have talked” and “too many people” arguments.
The sections below contain a history of my online interactions with “debunkers” here on this blog up until February 23, 2008. That history is interesting in its own right, apart from the larger post that it was buried in. So here it is, in a post of its own.