Sunday, December 31, 2017

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch the annotated version, which was named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. The creator did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I also recommend the BBC's terrific video on The Third Tower.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: Because some of our commenters have chosen to act like children, we are no longer allowing comments.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Alex Jones: Narcissist?

In the continuing saga of the Alex Jones custody trial that Pat touched upon earlier, the issue of Mr. Jones's mental disorders was brought up. Now my admittedly amateur diagnosis was Bipolar Disorder, but apparently the professionals thought otherwise:

Infowars founder Alex Jones was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder in a psychiatric evaluation, the divorce case manager confirmed during his custody trial in Austin on Wednesday. Austin psychologist Alissa Sherry said that a different doctor compiled the report, part of what she said was the most time-consuming divorce case she has ever worked. People diagnosed with NPD typically show traits including a lack of empathy, arrogance, and a propensity for grandiose fantasies. 

Monday, April 17, 2017

Alex Jones' Lawyers Admit He's Putting On an Act

It's admitted, as Alex would say.

He hasn't come across our radar much in quite awhile, although obviously he has been prominent in his support of Donald Trump's astonishing campaign for the presidency. But Jones was a big-time Truther back in the first decade of this century. I still remember him claiming that James and I worked in the basement of the Pentagon.

There was a video years ago of him going on a tirade, absolutely apoplectic, to the point where you thought he was going to burst into flames. And then he turned to Jason Bermas and gave him a wink.

Turns out that Jones' public persona is going to be used against him in court by his ex-wife in a custody battle. Which has his attorneys scrambling to distance him from the nutty things he says and does.

At a recent pretrial hearing, attorney Randall Wilhite told state District Judge Orlinda Naranjo that using his client Alex Jones’ on-air Infowars persona to evaluate Alex Jones as a father would be like judging Jack Nicholson in a custody dispute based on his performance as the Joker in “Batman.”

“He’s playing a character,” Wilhite said of Jones. “He is a performance artist.”

A couple years back somebody looked his house up online and found it was worth something like $450,000. I didn't use the information partly because I saw it as irrelevant, and partly because it actually seemed like a pretty modest home. Turns out Alex could afford quite a bit more:

Wilhite said the crux of Kelly Jones’ problem is that she has gone through one set of lawyers after another and some $3.5 million since her divorce settlement, much of it pursuing fruitless motion after motion that actually cost her access to her children each step of the way.

And she already receives $43,000 a month from her ex-husband.


Monday, March 20, 2017

What's Box Boy Richard Gage Up to These Days?

If you check his events page, it looks like "not much" is the answer. The most recent event shown is the 15th anniversary, where Gage shared the stage with Munchkin Barbara Honegger.

But it turns out that the founder of AE911Truth participated in the recent Nation of Islam conference. It's not like Gage to avoid publicizing such events; when he appeared there in 2012 he was certainly crowing about the opportunity to expose Louis Farrakhan's followers to 9-11 Troof.

Back then we bashed him a bit based on inside information we had stating that Boy Wonder Kevin Barrett would be appearing with him. As it turned out, our insider was wrong. Waterboy Kevin Ryan appeared instead.

And indeed, this may give us something of a clue as to why Richard Gage is not anxious to publicize his appearance at the Nation of Islam rally. This time around, not only was he appearing with Kevin "the Holocaust is a hideously destructive myth" Barrett, but also Christopher Bollyn.

Bollyn gave us quite a bit of amusement back in the early days of this blog. Once a reporter for the Holocaust-denying, white separatist rag the American Free Press, Bollyn was an early investigoogler of 9-11 nuttery, with the result that when a more respectable and scholarly-seeming man like David Ray Griffin came along, Bollyn's work was often cited. Indeed, I used to joke that Griffin seemed unable to complete a book without referring to him once or twice.

One afternoon, Bollyn was apparently drinking when he noticed a suspicious looking vehicle parked in his neighborhood. When he confronted the occupants of the vehicle, they apparently freely admitted they were local cops on a stakeout of a nearby residence that they suspected of drug-dealing.

Well, paranoid people are going to be paranoid, and Bollyn assumed that the cops were in fact spying on him. Big altercation, Bollyn assaults a cop, and he's up on charges. He was convicted and probably facing about 90 days in the big house, but he lammed instead.

So this time around, Gage shared the stage with two Holocaust deniers, one of whom may still be a fugitive from justice.

I'm sure he'd much rather we talk about his exciting new NIST whistleblower.

But it's a classic false appeal to authority. As Peter Michael Ketcham himself notes in the video, he did not work on the WTC investigation. He states that he was in the mathematical computations area, which leads me to wonder if we are in for some real deep calculations that prove inside job.

Not to worry. Ketcham's cited evidence has nothing to do with number crunching. It's the usual "symmetrical collapse into its own footprint at near free-fall acceleration." Ketcham is Charlie Sheen with less hair.

Here's Ketcham's Linked-In page. His current occupation?

Mobile application developer currently building a data visualization application for Apple iOS devices with an emphasis on accessibility for disabled users. Other interests include data science, virtual reality environments, haptic technologies, hierarchical data formats, matrix computations, and Swift numeric data types for rational numbers, complex numbers, and quaternions.

Again, if he were questioning the numbers used by NIST he might have some credibility. But he's not, he's just parroting the Truther talking points.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

David Ray Griffin Comes Up With a Brilliant Way to Dupe People Into Buying His New Book

Gotta hand it to him, this is a real con artist at work:

Not make it obvious, by means of the title, the cover, or the table of contents--that this is ultimately a 9-11 truth book.
However, you can see the fly rapidly heading towards the ointment in this following sentence:

The hope is that some people, not being aware of my notoriety, read enough of the first part of the book to see that I am not an idiot.
The book sounds like a real stomach--err, page-turner, from the title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World.  Suck 'em in with the Bush-bashing, and then switch to the 9-11 nuttery once you've got them all in a lather.  BTW, I suspect that even the Bush-haters will have problems with this part:

... American and the world are headed towards ruination because of the policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration--as continued in most cases by the Obama Administration...
 Gee, wonder why it's not the Obama-Biden administration?  Maybe because nobody thinks of Biden as the evil genius pulling the strings of the Obama puppet?

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Jill Stein Goes for the Crackpot Vote

With a call for a new 9-11 investigation, which contains the usual BS talking points:

The families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11 deserve justice. They also deserve to know the truth.
Led by the families of those who died on 9/11, the American people wanted—and deserved—a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the attacks. The Bush administration initially said an inquiry was unnecessary, claiming that the perpetrators had been identified and their methods and motives were clear.
It is well known that the 9/11 Commission produced a report containing so many omissions and distortions that Harper's Magazine described it as "whitewash as public service"—a document that "defrauds the nation." The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission wrote a book just two years after the final commission report, saying, "We were set up to fail." The 9/11 Commission was not given enough money, time, or access to relevant classified information.
The usual misreading of what Kean and Hamilton really said:

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."
From what I have seen, the Rebunkers seem to be on Trump's side; probably because he's been friendly with Alex Jones.  I suspect that this will help Stein get Jon Gold's support.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News

In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article.  Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write:
2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
True enough as far as it goes, but it omits one critical detail: when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading.  As a practical matter, I suspect that the sprinklers in WTC-1 and WTC-2 were already not functioning after the plane impacts, but even if they were they would have been insufficient to put out the massive fires in those two buildings.

But after that, the errors and omissions abound.  Next paragraph:

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing.  This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s (correction: 767s) when they hit the two towers.

4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
Which ignores the unusual tube-in-tube design of the towers, which were not as capable of shifting the enormous loads they encountered on 9-11 as conventional skyscrapers.

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.
All the signature features of an implosion?  Sorry, Dr Jones, but I have watched quite a few controlled demolition implosions of buildings before and there were several missing from WTC-7's collapse on 9-11:

1. No deafening explosions of the shaped charges which (Jones admits) are usually used in controlled demolitions.

2. No prior removal of the glass and other materials which might impede the collapse (not to mention the belongings inside the buiding.

3. No miles of detonation cord as is commonly used to ensure the simultaneous (or nearly) loss of load-bearing supports to the building.

And of course, when it comes to the towers, the usual focus on why the NIST report didn't go past the moment that collapse became inevitable:

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapsesequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]
Gee, I don't know, maybe it's because the collapse became, you know, inevitable?  After that, there are too many variables to really measure, but it doesn't really matter.

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied thatit was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.”
 If NIST really acknowledges that the Twin Towers came down "essentially in free fall" then bad on them.  As for why the lower sections failed to arrest (they did slow) the descent of the upper floors, it is blindingly obvious: The floors were connected to the exterior and central columns of the building.  As the weight from above collapsed on each floor, it pulled in on the connections until they snapped on the exterior.  Very quickly the exterior portions of the building peeled away from the floors, leaving nothing to support them.  This is why you can see, in aerial photographs of the devastation, large sections of the exterior walls virtually intact.

The references section contains four footnotes from JONES, and one from the ridiculous Bentham paper.  I hope that there will be some vigorous pushback on this article from the magazine's subscribers.