A Journey With Jonathan

Jonathan Kay has posted this review at his site, simply stating, "Conspiracy theorist Jonathan Cole reviews 'Among The Truthers' at 911blogger.com... And guess what? He doesn’t like it!"

Cole responds, "By the way, since I tend to trust Newton over NIST yet never posted a 'who done it' article, according to Jonathan Kay, I am now considered a 'conspiracy theorist'. (No doubt my past engineering and physics teachers are too.) - 'Conspiracy theorist' Jonathan Cole"

A JOURNEY WITH JONATHAN

A Review of the Book, "Among the Truthers," Written by Jonathan Kay

By: Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.

(PDF Link)

Source URL: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-22/journey-jonathan

I should have known from the cartoons on the cover what Jonathan Kay's book, "Among the Truthers," would be like. But that old saying about not judging a book by its cover trumped my first impression. I recalled similar cartoons like the astronaut, flying saucers and helicopters on my pajamas, worn as a toddler. The book’s subtitle, "A Journey through Americas Growing Conspiracist Underground," should have been my second clue as to its contents.

An "underground"? "Among the Truthers" is basically about the growing 9/11 Truth movement. “Truther” is slang, given by mainstream to individuals who first research the evidence and then realize that the official 9/11 story cannot be true. Kay tells of one former "truther" who finally did navigate the river Styx back to the mainstream from that underworld stating:

"There were a lot of nights when someone would go off on revolutionary rants, and we would be all rah-rah and get excited. At the time, I smoked a lot of pot with those guys. If you’re doing it everyday and watching propaganda, you're not going to be exercising your critical facilities."

What? I had to put the book down and look for my boots, as it was getting deep. I was a little ticked off, not so much for the obvious mischaracterization; but rather, if true, why I was never invited to any ranting "truther" events. When I started to educate myself, I simply signed a petition calling for a new investigation and conducted a few experiments to demonstrate what is, and what is not, physically possible. Not once was I invited to any dark underground pot smoking rah-rah meetings. I guess I am just not on the “Truther A-list.” Certainly, if such exciting revolutionary rants really do take place, it might explain why the truth movement is growing.

According to Kay it is not the rah-rah parties for the growth of the truth movement, instead, it’s something deeper and far more sinister. It’s so deep, that the average person that I know who questions the official 9/11 tale is not even aware of their “problem.” Kay’s book would help explain a puzzle, but not the puzzle of how the twin towers or Building 7 fell, while not violating physical laws. Rather, he outlines what he considers is this puzzle: What’s wrong with all those architects, engineers, scientists, researchers and thousands of others who place more faith in the fundamental laws of physics than the official 9/11 story?

I was once a “believer” in the official story, totally ignorant of the unexplained evidence and its violations of fundamental laws; "niggling anomalies" as Kay calls them, for over six years. I had my "uh-oh" moment late in 2007 when a friend, knowing that I was a nerdy engineer, forwarded a video that focused on the twin towers’ fall.

The shock reminded me of when I learned the sad truth about Santa Claus. Like all children, I had sat on Santa’s lap and seen evidence everywhere, convinced of his existence. How could millions of parents coordinate and keep this huge lie under wraps? Regardless, physics tells us that reindeers cannot fly and that same understanding of science confirmed the unfortunate truth of 9/11, the more I researched. Like the evidence of iron micro spheres found in the dust indicating temperatures hot enough to melt iron had to have been reached, yet the office and jet fuel fires were way too cold to perform that feat. The downward acceleration of the North Tower’s roof with no “jolts,” meaning that a force far less (not more) than its static weight was imposed on the undamaged tower below while the upper “block” of floors accelerated down, that remained unexplained. The evidence of sudden free fall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet indicates that some other force had to remove all the supports first. Nor was the evidence melting of steel beams found by a WPI professor or the sulfur source that created eutectic formations explained. And, of course, evidence of active nano-thermite, a high tech explosive found all through the dust. What was that stuff doing at Ground Zero?

Alas, Kay totally avoids all scientific evidence from the outset referring the reader to the National Institute of Standards and Technology or NIST Reports, "debunking websites" and the 9/11 Commission Report for answers to those and dozens of other critical “niggling anomalies.” Kay peddles the notion that only "the credentialed intellectual establishment" are “true experts" having the capability to comprehend the meaning of such complex matters like a falling object or melting of steel. What he neglects to tell the reader is that none of his “credentialed intellectual establishment” ever addressed the above-mentioned evidence, or dozens of other problems with the official story.

It would be as if Kay travelling back to the early 1600’s, avoided all Galileo's observations of planetary motions that bought him to question the official geocentric universe. Rather than address the evidence, Kay would psychoanalyze Galileo and his followers’ personal habits and beliefs in an effort to “understand” why Galileo dared to consider such blasphemies. No doubt Kay would simply dismiss his planetary anomalies stating the science has been settled for well over 1000 years, and referred the reader to Ptolemy, the Bible, Aristotle and "the credentialed intellectual establishment" for answers to that heretic’s niggling observations.

Once Kay sidesteps the key evidence, which is at the very heart of the truth movement, he is now free to offer his journalistic psychology lesson that outlines why those who trust scientific laws rather than the official story need to be diagnosed and stopped.

"Diagnosing and fighting conspiracism is an important project which is why I wrote this book,” says Kay. Evidently, honestly addressing the unanswered scientific evidence about the three largest structural failures in history and the murder of almost 3000 innocents on Sept 11 is a far less important project.

Kay sets out by re-defining Webster’s definition of what a conspiracy theorist or “conspiracist” is. Redefining and ignoring evidence is also important elements of 9/11 "debunking." Kay adopts the definition as a "theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.”

Despite the fact that a growing number of architects, physicists, researchers and chemists specifically do not get into the “who done it” nefarious cabal issues, Kay devotes considerable time smearing Richard Gage, AIA, physicist Steven Jones, and Gregg Roberts an independent 9/11 researcher, by outlining some “midlife crisis” or perhaps workaholics living all alone with “dark visions.” Kay places “truthers” in categories such as “damaged survivors,” “firebrands” or “cranks,” where some may be “prone to rambling.” Since Isaac Newton never married and was a workaholic who focused on some rather unorthodox concepts in the 1660’s; he would also fit nicely into one of Kay’s psycho-categories.

Kay dedicates the early chapters to a "brief history of conspiracism,” including discussions on the Illuminati, Freemasons, KKK and the John Birch Society. Kay weaves in reptilian lizard people, UFO’s, extraterrestrials, and others, for his not so subtle goal of linking those physicists, architects, chemists and engineers who enlighten us about the serious questions of 9/11, with some of the more “out there” theories.

To Kay's credit, he rightfully acknowledges that the average “truther” is nonviolent, with above average intelligence, and many with technical degrees or Ph.D.s. He also says he is not suggesting they harbor any hatred or are explicitly racist or anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, "they are still conspiracists and the threat currently posed by modern conspiracists is not physical, but cultural." Accordingly, he says, "It’s a trend that every thinking person has a duty to fight."

Kay acknowledges that there is always a “grain of truth” to conspiracy theories. For example, he mentioned on a recent radio program regarding the JFK assassination that “it is entirely possible that there was a second gunman involved,” a fact confirmed by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation which was conducted 15 years after the Warren Commission issued its lone-gunman and magic -bullet report. To me, the lone gunman vs. a conspiracy to murder the president is a rather large “grain of truth.”

However, the thrust of the book is really about how “anti-Semitism” links to “conspiracies.” “…ancient forms of conspiracism typically vilified one of two enemies: Jews and secret societies.” Virtually every chapter is filled with the worn out "anti-Semite" slur and the “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist” card is played, intended to place guilt by association on anyone who dares to honestly question 9/11

"Not all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic. But all conspiracy movements--all of them--attract anti-Semites.” according to Kay. So anyone who ever wondered about our perpetual debt and who really owns the Federal Reserve, or those who think it is a little odd that active nano-thermite was found all through the WTC dust, is now somehow linked to “anti-Semitism.” It is a wonderful tactic that can be used on any entity that one wants to vilify, without ever really addressing the questions.

For example, would you like to demonize those of us who think the Second Amendment is important? Just say: Not all gun owners are child murderers. But all children killed by bullets--all of them--were killed by a child murdering gun owner. Perhaps you don’t like to hear the fat lady sing? Simply mention: Not all church choir members are overweight. But all church choirs--all of them--attract overweight people. What Kay is suggesting of course, is that anyone even thinking about violating a social norm or asking intelligent questions about official explanations like Galileo did, could be, and probably should be tarnished as a potential “anti-Semite” in an effort to silence them.

Kay also dwells on something called “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” I never heard of them. Evidently they are a list of secret Jewish goals that are used to explain events and a “document that would become the most influential conspiracist tract since the era of the French Revolution.” What they, or anti-Semitism has to do with studying the evidence or the laws of physics, remained unexplained.

Kay is just a mainstream pitchman, insisting that our government and the mass media’s explanation of 9/11 must be true because those in leadership positions would never conspire to undertake or hide illegal events. This belief is their bedrock, no matter what evidence rears its ugly head after it was “officially” explained and regardless of how many laws of physics are violated.

For example, at the beginning of each AE911Truth presentation, Richard Gage, AIA, asks the audience how many believe in the official story and then asks the same question at the end. The vast majority in the audience “switches” or at least questions the official story once they hear the scientific evidence. Not Kay. “I’ve heard Gage speak three times in three different cities,” says Kay. “Before beginning his presentation in Montreal, Gage had polled the crowd on their views. Five people, including me and my guest, said they believed the official story of 9/11.” “Once Gage had finished, he conducted a second poll. This time, when he asked how many people supported the official theory, mine was the only hand raised. Shocked, I cast a glance at the friend sitting beside me. After three hours in a room with Richard Gage, she’d changed her vote to “not sure.” Ever the pitchman, apparently only Jonathan Kay thrust his hand skyward enthusiastically supporting the official story, despite the conflicting scientific evidence presented. Kay is an intelligent man and one would think that with his background in metallurgy, he would wonder just a little about those iron microspheres, eutectic formations or why all that active nano-thermite was found in the dust.

Kay uses famous quotes intended to be applied to the “conspiracy theorist,” but in reality, they are most appropriate for mainstream pitchmen like him who refuse to address the evidence, such as this one by Joseph A Schumpeter: “Many things that do amount to tampering with effects of logic do not in our field necessarily present themselves as dishonesty to the man who practices such tampering. He may be so fundamentally convinced of the truths of what he is standing for that he would rather die than give new weight to contradicting facts of pieces of analysis. The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”

Indeed. I changed my mind about 9/11 upon learning of the key scientific evidence; but Kay, regardless of freefall, active nano-thermite, iron microspheres, the strange fall of the towers inner core columns (“the spire”) well after the floors and roof fell and other unexplained evidence, is “so fundamentally convinced of the truths of what he is standing for, that he would rather die than give new weight to contradicting facts of pieces of analysis.”

“The idea that the 9/11 masterminds are sufficiently powerful to control the reporting of thousands of different American news outlets as well as stifle after the fact disclosures from hundreds of active conspirators, is farfetched,” according to Kay.

First, it’s a known fact that the ownership of the media has been concentrated to a handful of powerful individuals over the last 50 years. For example, Rupert Murdock, a strong supporter of the wars, controls over 175 papers and Fox News, who is strangely quiet about the alleged hacking of Americans phones and possibly even 9/11 victims to gather intelligence or bolster revenues. Secondly, just like parents really don’t conspire to hide the truth about Santa, it’s natural for most that work for the media, if they want to keep their job or avoid being found dead like journalist whistle blower Sean Hoare, to ignore or stifle uncomfortable evidence. Finally, it really doesn’t matter what one thinks is “farfetched,” because “farfetched” is still possible. Yet freefall, nano-thermite, iron microspheres and many other “niggling anomalies” are totally impossible, blowing the official story wide open.

Kay also faults the Internet for the rapid rise in so-called conspiracy theories. "The Internet actually has exacerbated the human instinct toward parochialism, tribalism and conspiracism," Kay says. Just like Kay downplays critical pieces of evidence, calling them anomalies, he also adds a negative modifier when discussing websites questioning 9/11, and a glowing one when referring to the government story or its supporters. He writes: "So a flashy well travelled site peddling discredited conspiracies will be featured more prominently in Google’s search results, than, say a government website full of accurate information." In fact, there are many 9/11 sites that are not “discredited” and government websites that are not “full of accurate information.”

The real problem for the pitchmen is that the ugly truth is pouring from this open electronic medium, and the government cannot stop the flood. Perhaps this is the real reason for the ongoing push to control the Internet, using copyright violations and cyber- terrorism as the excuse

Jonathan Kay has difficulties understanding why "conspiracist causes can gain strength even when mainstream journalists seek to tackle the underlying subject in a professional and objective way." Maybe it’s because mainstream journalists do not treat the subject in a professional and objective way. Based on my own experience, in order to understand the erosion in confidence of the mass media, Kay ought to watch the BBC production called The Third Tower. The BBC told us “the claims of the mysterious melted steel from tower 7 have been unraveled.” “The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wall board that was pulverized and burned in the fires.” Not only is the formation of sulfur or iron sulfide from calcium sulfate chemically impossible in an open air fire, but an experiment I conducted with gypsum around a steel beam heated to similar temperatures proved the BBC and the debunking sites, dead wrong.

Or he should watch the PBS documentary, “Why the Towers Fell,” that clearly told us they fell due to a "pancake collapse,” (which Kay parroted in a radio interview) complete with cartoon graphics demonstrating the fall of the tower floors and roof; but which left the core columns standing. Years later, when NIST finally managed to get to the initiation of collapse (but were “unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse”) they stated that the towers were not a pancake collapse, contrary to what PBS clearly told its viewers.

Likewise, the National Geographic “Science & Conspiracy Part 5” conducted an experiment with thermite in order to “prove” that thermite could not melt steel. Kay’s favorite debunking website said it could not cut a horizontal column. Moreover, the mainstream program Mythbusters could not melt through the thin roof of a car with a half of ton of thermite. Yet all three media sources were proved wrong by experiments demonstrating that indeed even crude thermitic material could slice through a column using much smaller quantities.

With portrayals like these proven to be total lies, no wonder the mass media has lost our respect. It is the media’s fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts that is eroding confidence, not because of any “anti-Semitism” of the viewers.

Kay tells us that ". . . there is no fact, historical event, or scientific phenomenon whose truth cannot, in some way, be brought into question by an inventive mind on the hunt for niggling "anomalies.” Here again, Kay is wrong. There are many significant historical events where there are no “inventive minds” hunting for “niggling anomalies.” Examples include the Columbia and Challenger space shuttle accidents, the Hindenburg disaster, and the death of Joe Kennedy, Jr. in 1944.

Most importantly, there is “scientific phenomenon” we all agree on that we call "laws," and not just “theories” of physics. There are not just a few “niggling anomalies” or a few "grains of truth,” about 9/11. Rather there are enough grains of truth to make entire beaches resting on a bedrock of natural laws, where the official story is getting pounded by waves of “niggling anomalies.”

Jonathan Kay does not contemplate that it’s not “anti-Semitism”, but rather significant evidence and facts that are contrary to the official story which leaves us begging for answers. When left unanswered by “the credentialed intellectual establishment,” of course it gives rise to "conspiracy theories” in an effort to explain the evidence. We may not know exactly who did it or how things were done, but we do know that the laws of physics prove the official story wrong, just like we know that 2+2=4.

Kay acknowledges “ . . .that whenever I tried to debate Truthers in the facts of 9/11, for instance, all of my accumulated knowledge about the subject has proven useless- because in every exchange, the conspiracy theorist inevitably would ignore the most obvious evidence and instead focus the discussion on the handful of obscure allegedly incriminating oddities that he has memorized.”

His “obvious evidence” is his mainstream mantra relying on “the credentialed intellectual establishment” or absurd statements like “someone would have talked” as if state secrets, highly classified information and military operations are routinely blabbed by those involved. On the other hand, the “obscure incriminating oddities” include total impossibilities such as the absolute freefall of WTC 7 for over 100 feet (impossible with a gravitational collapse), the melting of steel (impossible with an office fire), the lack of deceleration or jolts (necessary to impose a load in excess of its own weight in order to crush the lower undamaged portion of the towers), and the high tech nano-thermite, that is impossible to form naturally due to entropy laws.

The real reason that Kay and his “credentialed intellectual establishment” cannot win any debates is because the “truthers,” made up of thousands of architects, engineers, researchers, and scientists who are “normal articulate people who keep up with the news and hold down office jobs,” are right. Because despite all the name calling of anti-Semites, tin foil hatters, “twoofers”, “conspiracy theorists” and desperate efforts to spin those who question 9/11 in a negative light, Kay and the intellectual establishment simply cannot convince us that 2+2=5.

Since Kay admits having “ . . .been personally humbled by my failure to get the best of conspiracy theorists,” he sees the solution as an “ounce of prevention” and the need to “protect our brains from conspiracy theories before they have a chance to infect our thinking.” He says that conspiracism “ . . can be minimized by applying the same self critical self aware mindset that has served to stigmatize racism, overt anti-Semitism and related forms of bigotry in recent decades.” The solution according to Kay is “…, an anticonspiracist curriculum (that) would aim to provide students with grounding in Internet literacy. Students would be taught the difference between news and opinion; and between websites that are run by professional journalists, and those that are not.”

I don’t think that much could be more Orwellian than Kay’s “anticonspiracist curriculum” and indoctrination program run by journalists to “protect the brains” of our students so they don’t get “infected” by critical thinking looking at those “niggling anomalies”.

Kay wants you to trust authority because he says they are the “true experts,” and not to bother to research or think on your own. But history has proven time and again, that authority simply cannot be trusted. The great physicist Albert Einstein knew this well stating, “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Perhaps Einstein was an anti-Semite.

Kay provides a quote by Harold Macmillan, former Prime Minister of Britain that is most appropriate for this book: “That if you work hard and diligently you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot. And that, in my view is the main, if not the sole purpose of education.” I encourage everyone to educate themselves on the science of 9/11, that proves the twin towers and WTC 7 could not have “collapsed” by gravity and fire alone, so you can detect when a man is talking rot.

Investigators normally encourage people to step forward and offer tips for much smaller crimes, and only one minor “niggling anomaly” can dramatically change the outcome. For some reason that same encouragement to step forward about 9/11 is absent, as those highlighting mountains of unresolved scientific evidence are ignored or attacked as “conspiracy theorists” or worse.

America is deep in debt and spent over a trillion more on security and wars using 9/11 as the excuse. Why wouldn’t any person with morals want to look at the evidence or spend a relative pittance on a truly independent investigation in order to resolve the unanswered questions? The devil is always in the details, and maybe those who don’t want to look at the details of 9/11, just may have some link to that devil.

The rise of the truth movement with legitimate questions is not “a trend that every thinking person has a duty to fight” as Kay wants you to believe. Rather, using our founding fathers’ wisdom as a guide, it is every citizen’s duty to question the government in order to prevent it from naturally slipping ever closer toward tyranny, especially about events that murdered thousands, brought us endless war and debt, and restricted individual liberties--like that of 9/11.

If you decide to take this journey with Jonathan Kay I suggest you wear hip boots, since this is one book that can be judged by its cover.

Related Info:

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time

Read More

Debunking Jonathan Kay, his book Among the Truthers, and Other 'Debunkers'

Updated 6-16-11

Thanks to James Hufferd of 911grassroots.org for assisting me with some research for this article. James recently responded to Kay's book, to which Kay retorted, and this is my end-all be-all response to Kay.

In Frank Moher's review of National Post writer Jonathan Kay's new book Among the Truthers he writes, "Kay got his start on this beat when, as he reminds us, he discovered that a Liberal candidate in the 2008 federal election had six years earlier reported on some of the findings of various independent researchers into 9/11. He immediately employed the Post in a successful campaign to have her turfed as a candidate."

Professor Anthony Hall was less reserved in his description of Kay's entrance into the world of 9/11 truth when he addressed Kay at a Q&A in 2009:



Almost one month after Kay's initial hitpiece he admitted that he knew nothing about the issue before writing it, stating, "I have never bothered schooling myself in the minutiae of 911-ology — the microscopic examination of photos and videos, the comparison of melting points and mechanical properties of this or that construction material, the second-by-second timetable of U.S. Air Force activity on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001."

However, he promised to change his ways noting that he was "going to slog through the 9/11 Commission Report — and maybe even some other texts besides."

In addition to doing this Kay says that he spent "three years interviewing Truthers, reading their literature, attending their events, and surfing their discussion forums."

Here is a video showing Kay attending a lecture by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.



The true extent or thoroughness of Kay's research can not be determined from his book, because as he writes, "Debunking books don’t sell, one New York City editor explained to me when I told him my original draft of Among the Truthers contained several long chapters explaining the logical fallacies within 9/11 Truth theories." Kay instead refers his readers to other sources of information like the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts.

First off, the statement that "debunking books don't sell" is clearly bunk because the Popular Mechanics book and the response by David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory are both in the top 100 September 11th books at Amazon.com (Debunking 9/11 Debunking is currently #36 and Debunking 9/11 Myths is #54.)

As I've stated of Griffin's book, I strongly disagree with some of his research, such as his analysis of the phone calls from the planes on 9/11, however, he does an excellent job in regard to the destruction of the WTC Towers and lack of air defense on 9/11, but I'll get back to Griffin and his work in a bit.

As Professor Hall notes in his review of Among the Truthers it would be nice to view these missing chapters of Kay's book to see just how exhaustive his research was. Hall then points to an article entitled "Hemingway and Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War, but Jonathan Kay couldn’t handle an afternoon in the rain" by Dallas Hansen as evidence that, as Frank Moher put it, Kay wasn't "out to understand" truthers, but rather "out for their scalps." Hansen writes that Kay "showed up for some 'field research' back in September [2008] and he didn’t seem interested in talking to anyone or seeing anything at all. He seemed more concerned with checking Facebook on his Blackberry and taking phone calls from his wife... You were never Among the Truthers—rather you acted as though their ideas were a contagion from which you could stay immune only so long as you stayed in your ivory tower."

Kay indeed seems to only have taken a cursory look at the subject. At one point during a debate about his book with Richard Gage, Paul Zarembka, and Barry Zwicker, Kay states that people in the truth movement are "suggesting or... receptive to the idea that teams of hundreds of CIA agents spent months boring holes into columns inside the World Trade Center" and planting explosives. The fact of the matter is, the most prominent 9/11 researchers of the controlled demolition issue (as well as most other adherents) do not believe in this scenario. As Wikipedia notes:

Since early 2003, [Jim] Hoffman has been writing about the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) and other aspects of the September 11, 2001 attacks... Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist formerly with Brigham Young University, has credited Hoffman's WTC7.net website and described his work as an inspiration for conducting his own analysis of the WTC building collapses. Hoffman's book and websites are cited in Jones' essay "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?". Hoffman has also been cited by author David Ray Griffin.

Hoffman has refuted the premise put forward by Kay for a very long time via FAQ links on the front page of his website 9/11 Research, noting that, "demolitions could have been controlled using wireless detonators... may have been achieved without accessing the perimeter columns... could have been disguised as or concealed within legitimate equipment... and installed by workers oblivious to their surreptitious function." In two other FAQs Hoffman further addresses the "large numbers of people" argument as well the idea raised by Kay in the debate that it's implausible to think officials would be involved in a conspiracy to kill their own people.

Kay and James Bennett of the Screw Loose Change blog have both recently proclaimed that Among the Truthers is not full of various types of ad hominem argumentation and insults.

Kay states that "again an again" truthers argue he engages "in 'name-calling' and ad hominem attacks, he writes:

Except to the extent that I use the term “conspiracy theorist” to describe people who are, well, conspiracy theorists, I reject the second accusation, as well. In fact, I am proud to have made a point of sketching 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the most affectionate possible light. In its review of my book, The Wall Street Journal pointed this out, in fact: “Reporting without mockery, Mr. Kay has a knack for making even the silliest conspiracist sound sympathetic.”

The term conspiracy theorist is just the tip of the iceberg, but as Kay himself has stated, "properly contextualized...the official version is a conspiracy theory too because you're theorizing about a conspiracy perpetrated by 19 hijackers and their supporters in Afghanistan." Only using "conspiracy theorist" to describe truthers in his book obviously invokes the negative connotation of the term.


http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/nanothermite-demolishes-911-conspiracy.html

Here is some more of the iceberg from Professor Hall's review, some of which I will explore further.

The demeaning outcome of Kay’s effort to substitute name calling for engagement in the scholarly literature of 9/11 is most evident in chapter five. Here Kay extends his Shermeresque topography of alleged deviance to demean his opponents as examples of “the damaged survivor,” “the cosmic voyageur,” “the clinical conspiracist,” “the evangelical doomsayer,” “the firebrand,” and the author’s most all-purpose put down, “the crank.”

James Bennett states, "The Truthers of course condemn him for ad hominem attacks, but in reality, he is actually rather kind to them, much kinder than I would be..."

The problem with this is that after stating Steven Jones is a "famous Brigham Young University physicist renowned for his work with cold fusion back in the 1980s," Kay soon thereafter approvingly quotes James about Jones, insinuating he's just seeking adulation: "Look at Steven Jones. He had his brush with fame with cold fusion. But it didn't pan out. And it became a miniscandal in the scientific community. He almost accomplished something. But now he's in the Truth movement. He's lauded by thousands. He gives speeches. People talk about him in the same breath as Ganhi and Jesus." Kay himself calls Jones "a celebrity Truther who pioneered the myth that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down with thermite" and as professor Hall notes "demeans the Mormonism" of Jones.

First off, citing articles Jones wrote extolling Mormonism as further evidence of his kookiness is certainly an example of rejecting an argument "on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author." Otherwise known as ad hominem.

As Jones explained in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method," his research is not what became a "miniscandal in the scientific community."

Wikipedia notes:

In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman.

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error, most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.

Jones writes, "It’s remarkable isn’t it? Metal-catalyzed (cold) fusion is a very unpopular field in the United States because of misunderstandings and guilt by association and so on. Yet there’s a lot of hope here at least for understanding nature -- and we may eventually get to an energy source based on fusion."

As noted on Wikipedia's article on ad hominems, "Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument."

Professor Hall decerns:

So zealously does Kay depend on the strategy of guilt-by-association, while evading simultaneously any serious engagement with the evidentiary basis of the arguments and theories he seeks to discredit, that his text comes across as a veritable caricature of smear through disinformation. Kay links, for instance, “Scientology, UFO groups, and 9/11 Truth” as united in supposed shared “hostility towards conventional medicine.” The so-called Truthers and the larger “conspiracist” culture in which Kay situates his main targets of smear are said to draw on the heritage of “Christian Identity, Aryan Pride, militant libertarianism, states’ rights, anti-Semitism, crank monetary theories, and nativist xenophobia.” The “rich soil” where “the seeds of conspiracism” are said to have put down roots is supposedly fertilized by “communism, fascism, tribalism and strident nationalism, but also more faddish intellectual pathologies such as racial identity politics, anti-Americanism, and obsessive anti-Zionism.”

And as Frank Moher writes in his review, "Kay’s tactic here is the same one used by Michael Shermer of the seriously missnamed Skeptics Society, which is, as the subtitle indicates, to mix up the 9/11 truth movement with The Protocols of Zion, holocaust denial, birtherism, moon hoaxism, etc., into one big wacky ball of racism and lunacy. And his method is as dishonest as Shermer’s as well."

Kay also lumps Steven Jones, Richard Gage (an example of "midlife crisis" according to Kay), actor Daniel Sunjata, former governor Jesse Ventura, and actor Charlie Sheen, in with Jarded Loughner, the shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and Iranaian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who Kay states is "a Truther, too, naturally." The reader is reminded that Ahmadinejad "also doubts" the Holocaust as well as 9/11.

Blog contributor Scootle Royale stated of the Loughner situation at the time:

Not surprisingly, the debunkers are once again using this to demonize us. Pat Curley [also of the Screw Loose Change blog] has written a number of posts, including Truther Body Count, in which he summarizes the high-profile cases of alleged truthers murdering people...

Loughner's friend also said he enjoyed smoking Salvia Divinorum, a hallucinogenic herb recently made famous by Miley Cyrus. So using the propagandist's flawed logic, I guess that means she's a killer too!

When Ahmadinejad stated at the U.N. in September of 2010 that "most people believe the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001" well known 9/11 activist John Parulis had this to say in a reply to another commenter on 911blogger.com, "...This seems to be an ongoing line of thought in the Truth Movement...that even bad associations and ties to erroneous positions are 'good' for our movement because they keep a spotlight on 9/11 and the claims we make to an alternative view. Where is your proof that this type of negative association works?"

Of course Kay using Ahmadinejad against us is proof that there is none.

Parulis continues in another comment:

By attending a 9/11 conference in Iran, we would indeed be associating with Ahmadinejad's repressive government and any experiments or papers delivered there would be suspect. It's called "guilt by association". We must seek out and cultivate stronger moral and political supporters than this. I continue to be amazed by the gullibility of many posters here in thinking Ahmadinejad's statements will be of some, any, benefit to us.

The highest rated comment in the discussion from site administrator "LeftWright" concluded by saying:

I think if President Ahmadinejad's support of an alternate theory regarding the events of 9/11/01 is brought up, the best thing to do is simply state that everyone is entitled to an opinion and the 9/11 truth movement does not support him or any repressive regime anywhere in the world. We are about facts, physics and logic, and getting a complete and transparent investigation into the largest single day crime ever to take place on American soil.

There were also many comments (such as this excellent one from "Snow Crash") decrying Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial.

Paul Joseph Watson of the popular site InfoWars.com wrote that Ahmadinejad is "a petty dictator and an odious character who oversees a regime of oppression and disregard for human rights," but noted that "just because Ahmadinejad discusses a certain topic doesn’t instantly discredit the basis of that issue."

That is unless you are Jonathan Kay, engaging in guilt-by-association ad hominem attacks. There is certainly not enough consensus in the truth movement that Ahmadinejad is among our accepted ranks. This is not to say that Jesse Ventura is any longer in good standing with a large portion of the movement after endorsing unpopular views on the destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon attack. And Charlie Sheen, well... messenger aside, his message has been pretty good, so I'm still in his korner. ;) Bottom line is, none of the actual active truthers on that list deserve to be associated with a would-be assassin and a man who held a holocaust denial conference featuring David Duke, former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Getting back to Steven Jones, the idea that Jones stuck to his guns in the face of a negative reaction from his community and university; ultimately leading to him losing his career, for adulation that had mostly not come yet is absurd.

For those who would still argue that Jones is seeking fame and who would point to his new controversial research into man-made earthquakes and free enery as proof of this and his incompetence, it must first be noted that Jones has stated he has found a "prosaic explanation" for the earthquake data that had him interested in the subject. In a blog entitled "Experimental Science to the Rescue: 9/11, Cold Fusion, now Alt-Energy," Jones states:

As with 9/11 and cold fusion researches, I'm trying to bring the scientific method including experiments using state-of-the-art equipment to find out what's really going on here, and to contribute if I can to the goal of achieving cheap, local clean energy. In recent months, I have done tests using advanced techniques to evaluate input and output power -- experiments that suggest there MAY be a previously-untapped source of energy here. (I still believe in the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy!) I'm trying once again to bring “rigor without rancor”.

As one of Jones' co-authors of the 2009 paper that reports to have found a nano-engineered variant of thermite known as super-thermite, or nano-thermite, in dust from the WTC, Brad Larsen, noted of Jones, "He is... an experimentalist; which should be a big part of any sound epistemology... I personally have every confidence Steve will be honest about the results regarding his researches into alternative energy sources, at the end of the period he mentioned." (Dec 31, 2011)

Jones has not jumped the gun and published his data in any papers and has made his experimental data open-source; a move that makes replication and thus confirmation or refutation much easier.

It was this same type of approach with his 9/11 studies that makes it impossible to dismiss him as simply a fame chasing purveyor of a "myth that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down with thermite"

In 2007, chemical engineer Mark Basile attended a conference by Jones where he spoke of his preliminary findings regarding the nano-thermite. Basile approached Jones afterward and offered to independently look at a sample of dust that Jones had gathered from four NYC residents to see if he could confirm his findings. Since he did replicate the results of Jones and his colleagues "debunkers" conclude that he is not independent, but the fact of the matter is, he seems to have only become a full-fledged truther after this duplication. Basile has stated that he even obtained a completely independent sample of dust from a NYC museum.

Conversely, the nano-thermite paper was published in an open-access journal over two years ago, but has yet to be refuted in similar fashion, as the paper's second author, current BYU phyics professor and lab director for TEM (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy), Dr. Jeffrey Farrer PhD., recently stated in a blog post here which he contributed to, (one of 46 posts from our archive that tear to shreds ludicrous paint claims, hypocritical peer-review arguments and conspiratorial chain of custody suggestions) "I... cannot understand why critics of our paper expect us to retract our conclusions when there has been no data put forth that leads to any other conclusion than that which we have made in the paper."

Niels Harrit, who is an expert in nano-chemistry and an Associate Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, was the first author of the nano-thermite paper. Critics often act as if Jones wrote the paper alone. As Victoria Ashley of 9/11 Research pointed out, "Niels Harrit is not in Utah and did not start off working with Steve. They have different labs and both found the same things. Harrit walks a reporter through his lab in one of the videos."

Even the facts that 9/11 family members and activist Jon Gold have brought to light were ignored by Kay because the family members are just "Truthers who fell into the damaged-survivor category" and Gold is not thinking clearly because he is blinded by their emotions.

Gold relayed the following via comments on 9/11 Truth News:

Just sent this to him… [Kay] I notice in your book you try to portray my sympathy for the families that lost someone that day, that are still seeking justice, as a bad thing. Never in a million years did I think my support for those who needed it most would ever be used against me. You are disgraceful, and a hack.

His response…

Thats not at all what I did. And its bizarre that you would characterize what I wrote that way. But I wont bother arguing with you, besides this brief statement.

My response…

Stating that “the spectacle of their grief short-circuits our intellectual faculties” is an insult. I was involved in this cause long before I saw Bob McIlvaine cry. I hope that you never have to see a loved one brutally murdered, and watch each investigation into that murder have its own version of corruption and compromise.

You completely ignored the real story. That this was started by the families.. that each investigation had its own version of compromise and corruption… that there are too many unanswered questions… that there are indications of criminality, etc… and so on. Instead… you focused primarily on the nuts… the weakest links… you latched every conspiracy theory known to man onto 9/11… portrayed us as psychologically unstable… used ad hominem attacks… and you ignored incriminating information and people.

You are disgraceful and a hack. There’s some truth for you.

As Frank Moher noted in his review, "Barrie Zwicker, a journalist of longer standing and quite a bit more distinction than Kay, becomes 'an amiable crank,' ... And David Ray Griffin, who has spent not two but eight years studying his subject and published 11 books about it, is also, simply, a crank." Kay called his use of the word crank a "term of endearment" during his debate with Richard Gage, Paul Zarembka, and Barry Zwicker who retorts that "in the context of your book it comes out as a term of abuse." Wikipedia defines crank as "a disparaging term for a person who holds an unorthodox opinion" and crank.net who showcases "cranks, crackpots, kooks, & loons on the net" seems to agree.

Kay writes:

Many come to their crankdom in middle age, or at the end of their their working lives, as they are casting about for some project to occupy their hyperactive brains. In some cases, cranks are high-functioning intellectuals frustrated by a menial profession... Many cranks have a Asperger's like-like obsession with arithmetic, flowcarts, maps, and lengthy data lists... What drives the cranks on an emotional level isn't the substance of their theories: Many of the Truther cranks I've interviewed-including David Ray Griffin, Barry Zwicker, and Paul Zarembka... treated the issue as a debating exercise, and seemed curiously detached from the profoundly disturbing implications that flow from their claims. What cranks truly crave is exhilarating sense of independence, control, and superiority that come from declaring oneself a self-sufficient intellectual force.

Many truthers "are smarter than the average person" we are told and it is this very attribute that "shields them in their own mind from criticism."

The fact that being smart and a crank are not mutually exclusive does not make it a term of endearment. As to Kay's psyciatric evaluation, professor Hall writes, "Without even a gloss of credentials in the field, Kay appoints himself as a practitioner his own school of social psychiatry. From this platform of quackery Kay diagnoses all those who do not share his worldview as victims of 'collectively experienced mental illness.'"

On the other hand, Washington's Blog notes that "many mental health professionals have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false, and that those who believe the official version suffer from emotional problems or defense mechanisms."

Furthermore, it is not surprising that people who are still deeply involved in their working lives are far less likely to have the time and inclination to look into 9/11, and smart individuals with menial jobs may very well choose to exercise their intellectual prowess through 9/11 research. In either case, it does not mean they are doing so because they have the inherent superiority complex of crankdom that shields them "in their own mind from criticism." It is this, that makes or breaks Kay's case.

Here is what James from Screw Loose Change says in his review of Among the Truthers when defending Kay's decision to not include facts in the book:

"Kay explains rather, that 1. he really didn't have much new to add to the debunking argument (he cites several books and Internet sites, including this one, as resources for this), and 2. his editor didn't think that there was a market for such a book, because the Truthers would not believe anything he put and everyone else didn't need to be told. I agree to a certain extent, although we have done a lot of debunking over the last 5 years, I have gotten to the point where about all I discuss is the psychology of this movement, because really, is much really added by our pointing out for the 15th time that the hijackers actually were on the flight manifests?"

Well, major 9/11 truth sites have acknowledged this as fact, see here and here. Not very cranky of us.

Economics Professor Paul Zarembka, who Kay mentions in his diatribe on cranks, has recently written that the work of Mike Williams at the debunking site 911myths.com has caused him "to reconsider [his] prior conclusion of high probability of insider trading in put options" for American and United airlines stocks. I have previously stated that I believe the insider trading issue had been effectively debunked. Again, not very cranky of us.

The fact of the matter is, the best criticism of debunkers, such as that of the 9/11 fake phone calls theory of David Ray Griffin (who Kay calls the "leading crank" of the movement) has been accepted and expanded upon by many truthers. In this case and with the no plane at the Pentagon claims, many 9/11 truth activists never accepted these claims in the first place.

And while Griffin and many others still don't accept these criticisms, a possibly cranky trait, its very existence proves the movement can accept criticism and can't be pigeonholed.

Furthermore, some bad research in other books proves nothing regarding a book focused on one specific 9/11 issue (that most truthers agree upon) like David Ray Griffin's The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False, which is criticism, that Kay apprently has not looked into despite him interviewing Griffin and him being "the leading crank" of the movement. (See my debunking of the only bad Amazon.com review of the book here.)

During his debate with Richard Gage, et al. Kay stated, "In terms of WTC 7, you don't have to go to the 9/11 Commission Report, you can go to the NIST report... done by hundreds of engineers, probably the most advanced finite-element method computer simulation done in the history of engineering... but most of the conspiracy theorists I meet have no desire to read reports like that, or if they do they discredit them because their from the government." This stems from our "nihilistic distrust of government."

First off, the heart of the matter here is valid criticism vs bunk criticism. How can we tell the difference? Michael Angier of successnet.org imparts this bit of wisdom from a friend, "If one person calls you a horse, well that's just an opinion. If two people call you a horse, you may want to stop and think about it. If three people call you a horse, you may want to start shopping for a saddle."

In the case of the NIST WTC 7 report, we have prominent individuals from both sides of the 9/11 truth debate as well as a NIST whistle-blower agreeing that NIST is not operating with scientific considerations first. So, that's a start, but we'll get back there in a second.

Griffin's book certainly does not simply "discredit the report because it's from the government," but instead shows how NIST ignored and misrepresented evidence of demolition while thoroughly documenting many major flaws in the report, for example, Griffin writes:

Every aspect of NIST's theory of a fire-induced global collapse of WTC 7... depends on implausible claims and outright fabrications. Its theory of weakened floor beams depends on implausible steel temperatures, which in turn depend on implausible fire temperatures. Its theory of thermally induced girder failure depends on two cases of fraud: denying the existence of shear studs and fabricating a 'differential thermal expansion' in it computer simulation by heating the steel beams but not the floor slabs. Its theory of how thermally expanded beams wreaked havac presupposes an implausible amount of elongation.

Concerning most of this and those "hundreds of engineers" that Kay mentions:


http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/ultimate-proof-nist-is-lying-about-wtc7.html

Griffin notes that both "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening and truther chemist Kevin Ryan "have concluded... steel beams could not have reached 600 °C..." which NIST claims is the temperature reached by five floor beams that initiated the collapse.

Griffin also notes that Greening concurs that "NIST's simulated fires seem to be 300 to 400°C too hot and to have endured two or more hours too long" and that "the simulated collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the actual collapse." Other "debunkers," such as on the comments to the YouTube video below, point out that the models "are just showing the inner structure," but as Griffin notes, Greening demonstrates that "the internal progression of column failures would have had noticeable effects on the building's exterior."



In October 2008, Greening and three of his colleagues were published in the American Society of Civil Engineers' peer reviewed Journal of Engineering Mechanics (JEM). Their paper "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" promoted the pile-driver or crush-down theory in which the tops of the Towers act as giant sledgehammers. Greening was the third author of the paper, the first being engineer Zdenek Bazant who wrote another paper also published by the JEM on 9/13/01 essentially promoting the theory.

The problem for Greening and company is that their paper has been refuted twice in the same journal it was published in by members of the truth movement.

See this article by Ryan and this interview with Greening conducted by truther Kevin Barret regarding WTC 7.

Also see this criticism of Greening regarding the nano-thermite issue and this criticism of Barret on many other issues.

Griffin writes:

We also have the testimony of a former NIST employee who had held "a supervisory scientist position at the top civil service grade" until 2001, after which he worked as a part-time contractor until 2006. Although this man wishes to remain anonymous, for fear of possible retaliation, he is known to physicist Steven Jones, who has confirmed that he is indeed who he says he is... Speaking in particular about the implications of NIST's politicization for its work on 9/11-related issues, he wrote:

When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un-scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, and assessed for political implications before release.

While not supporting the controlled demolition theory, James Quintiere, the former chief of NIST's fire science division has also called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Investigation, stating, "I wish that there would be a peer review of this." As Griffin makes clear, this applies to WTC 7 as well.

Conversely, the nano-thermite paper was peer-reviewed and replicated. While "debunkers" have claimed these efforts were not adeqaute they have not still not answered the April 2009 challenge from Steven Jones, when he stated, "IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are 'vanity publications' (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out."

In summation: we have a prominent "debunker" and a former NIST employee essentially agreeing the NIST WTC 7 report is bunk. NIST's theory on the Towers and WTC 7 were not peer-reviewed and a prominent paper supporting the NIST report on the Towers was refuted twice by the truth movement in the same journal it was published in. Conversely, despite claims of shoddy peer-review and replication, the nano-thermite paper has not been refuted anywhere outside of blogs and forums; with no actual experiments being undertaken.

Is Kay shielding himself from this valid criticism in his own mind, ignorant of it, or feigning ignorance. If it's the first, he is doing as he says his opponents do. If it's the second, it further proves he has only taken a cursory look at 9/11 truth material. And if it's the third, he is being disingenuous.

As civil engineer Jonathan Cole recently wrote to me in an email. (Read Cole's review of Among the Truthers here.)

I called into Jonathan Kay about two weeks ago on the radio. Naturally he cut me off. But I captured it on audio. One of his big problems about us “conspiracy theorists” (i.e. people who study the details and ask legitimate questions, using the laws of physics…you know, crazy guys like Isaac Newton), is that we are difficult to debate because we know these little things called “facts”. And the “Academics” are scared to debate, because the conspiracy theorist will bring up those scary points that the academics will not know how to answer.

But as Pat Curley of Screw Loose Change advised Kay in 2008, "Don't Sweat the Details, John... ...Use the resources that are already out there, like Mike Wilson's (correction: Williams) 9-11 Myths, or Kate's Debunking 9-11 or Mark Robert's WTC 7 Lies page. Our archives contain a lot of material that you can find by using the search feature at the top left."

Pat really oughta know better. The truth is in the details, Jon

"They REALLY oughta know better" by blog contributor Adam Taylor:

Critiques of claims made by several prominent and semi-prominent 9/11 debunkers


-Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO-

Joseph Nobles’ claims about “free fall” shown to be false.

Mr. Nobles attempts to refute NASA engineer Dwain Deet’s website 7problemswithbuilding7. I show his claims to be false and misleading.

My critique of Mr. Nobles’ “The Big Three: Parts 1, 2 and 3.”

Mr. Nobles claims that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the Twin Towers and Building 7. I show this assertion to be false.

My take on Mr. Nobles’ claims about thermal conductivity and the eutectic steel.

Mr. Nobles responds to my many refutations of his claims. I respond back here, here, and here.

Joseph Nobles criticizes AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan's credentials. Darcy Wearing and John-Michael Talboo respond.

My thoughts on Joseph Nobles' criticisms of the BuildingWhat? site.

Nobles claims that that the explosion in the 'Seven’s Exploding' video is fake. John-Michael Talboo shows otherwise.


-Mark "Gravy" Roberts-

My extensive critique of Mark Roberts’ video “WTC Not a Demolition.”

Honest mistakes are apparently “big news” to Mark Roberts.

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

Mark Roberts debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on Hardfire.

Scootle Royale and John-Michael Talboo address Mark Roberts’ assertion that the red/gray chips are primer paint.

Mark Roberts claims that “no one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts.


-NASA engineer Ryan Mackey-

Jim Hoffman critiques Ryan Mackey’s essay “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”

Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the upper section of the North Tower explains the lack of deceleration in the North Tower. Scootle Royale and I explain why he is incorrect.

Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti questions Ryan Mackey about claims he made during their Hardfire debate.


-Protec employee Brent Blanchard-

Jim Hoffman replies to Blanchard’s paper “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”

Blanchard constantly claims that parts of explosives such as det cord should have been found in the debris. However, a phone conversation with Dr. Steven Jones suggests otherwise.

Former Controlled Demolition Inc. explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Blanchard’s claims about finding parts of explosives in the debris.

Andrea Dreger on Blanchard’s claims about molten metal at Ground Zero. Pg. 145


-Mike Williams of 911myths.com-

John-Michael Talboo examines Mike Williams’ claims about intercepts and the NORAD stand-down.

Forum poster Beached critiques numerous claims made by Mike Williams.*Note: I do not agree with everything on this page.

Mike Williams takes on Pakistan's ISI link to the 9/11 funding. Here’s the other side of the argument. More on this subject here.


-Physical chemist Dr. Frank Greening-

Dr. Greening makes a lazy attempt at refuting the Active Thermitic Material paper. Dr. Steven Jones responds.

Dr. Greening hypothesizes that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the WTC buildings. Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross addresses these claims.

Dr. Frank Legge addresses Dr. Greening’s criticisms of David Chandler’s analysis of WTC 1’s collapse.

David Chandler responds to Dr. Greening’s letter regarding Newton’s 3rd Law and falling buildings.

Andrea Dreger on Dr. Greening’s article “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster.” Pg. 113

Dr. Greening’s theories about what caused the sulfidation of WTC steel are put to the test by civil engineer Jonathan Cole.


-Explosives expert Ron Craig-

Ron Craig debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Former explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Ron Craig’s claims about explosives causing damage to other buildings.


-Mathematician Dave Thomas-

Analysis of Dave Thomas’ debate with Richard Gage, including comments by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.

Further analysis of the claims made by Dave Thomas during his debate with Richard Gage.

Tony Szamboti comments on Dave Thomas’ physics model of the WTC collapse.


-Pat Curely and James B. of Screw Loose Change-

Pat Curley debates with 9/11 truth activist Jon Gold.

Pat Curley attempts to debunk the "rebunkers." John-Michael Talboo responds.

After 16 months of debunking Screw Loose Change, James B. comments on the Debunking the Debunkers blog to discuss pretty girls.

Pat Curley: the king of scientific peer-review.

Pat Curley attempts to cast doubt on the results of the Active Thermitic Material paper. John-Michael Talboo demonstrates why he is wrong.

Pat Curley claims that Steven Jones makes a strawman argument, but only exposes his own failed logic and poor research.

James B. claims that “trutherism is a mythology, not a science.” I show why he is completely wrong.

Pat Curley attempts to discredit Sibel Edmonds. John-Michael Talboo exposes his errors.

Pat Curley misrepresents the firefighter testimony and then accuses 9/11 truthers of doing the same thing.

Pat Curley attempts to use the firefighter testimony to prove WTC7 was engulfed in flames. John-Michael Talboo shows why he is wrong.

James B. and Pat Curley attempt to discredit the film Zeitgeist and 9/11 truth through association to a killer. Scootle Royal and I show why these claims are baseless.


-Dr. Zdenek Bazant-

Structural engineer Anders Björkman’s discussion of Bazant’s paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York."

Chemical engineer James Gourley’s discussion of Bazant’s paper “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.”


-Physicist Manuel Garcia-

Jim Hoffman critiques Manuel Garcia’s articles on 9/11. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

Dr. David Griscom addresses Dr. Manuel’s CounterPunch articles on the WTC collapses.

Francisco González comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007 article in CounterPunch.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe on Dr. Garcia’s WTC arguments.

Kevin Ryan shows that Manuel Garcia sees physics that don’t exist.


-Dr. Keith Seffen-

Dr. Crockett Grabbe’s discussion of Dr. Seffen’s paper "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis."


-Joseph Welch-

Stewart Bradley responds to Joseph Welch's "15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer."


Youtube debunkers
---------------------------


-Ryan Owens/RKOwens4-

Ryan Owens’ debunking videos refuted by my “9/11 Un-debunked” series. Version 1. Version 2.

My open letter to Ryan Owens.

My comments on Mr. Owens’ response to my open letter.

John-Michael Talboo shows Ryan Owens that controlled demolition is possible.

Ryan Owens debates with Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley.

Ryan Owens accuses me of taking money for my 9/11 videos. I inform him that he is incorrect.

Jason Bermas addresses Ryan Owens’ claims about the temperatures in the Ground Zero debris.

Mr. Owens makes numerous assertions about WTC7’s collapse. I show his claims to be wrong.

The US State Department uses one of Ryan Owens’ videos as “debunking” of 9/11 controlled demolition theories.


-AlienEntity-

John-Michael Talboo refutes AlienEntity’s video “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions,” then debates with him on the subject.

AlienEntity claims his measurements corroborate NIST’s results. I show why he’s wrong.


-Dan Stevens/dsglop-

Dan Stevens appears in Nathan Moulten’s film “Activist.”

Dan Stevens attempts to answer Charlie Sheen’s 20 Questions to Obama. I show why his answers are nonsense.


-K.T. Penn/loosechangeexposed-

My refutation of many of K.T. Penn’s claims.

The many absurd beliefs of K.T. Penn.


-deRoyLight-

Stewart Bradley addresses deRoy's video "Defusing Nanothermite: Integrity."


-dprjones-

Stewart Bradley addresses dprjones' video "Advice and a challenge for 9/11 'truthers'"

Read More

SWIPES AT TRUTHERS -- AND OUR RESPONSE

Editor's note: Kay has responded to this article. Here is my end-all be-all response to Kay.

James Hufferd
911grassroots.org
May 30, 2011

Recently, Canadian establishmentarian Jonathan Kay’s new mock-anthropological book, Among the Truthers, has caught a lot of deserved flak online on a lot of Truther web sites and in reader reviews and attendant blogs on its Amazon.com web page. Its great sin, we find, is its very m.o.: simply bad-mouthing a whole plethora of prominent Truthers for alleged nuttiness in their past and in current statements, and for alleged failure as a class to listen to “reason” (his official, name-brand type). This blanket denunciation Jonathan Kay offers without either stating or disputing a single bit of the embarrassingly ample evidence our movement relies on to make the case in multiple ways that the persistent, sacrosanct official narrative of 9/11 is an obvious and transparent cover-up, easily disprovable on a hundred counts. Mr. Kay’s fig-leaf excuse for writing a whole, full-size book lambasting us for being immune to reason and absurd without specifying any reasoning or disputing any evidence? His editor told him that debunking books don’t sell. But vacuous, name-calling ones do? The best thing about Mr. Kay’s opus, Among the Truthers, is that it’s so easy to dismiss as simply meaningless and argumentatively worthless. Enough said.

Thus, name-calling and ridicule based on that is one weapon used by detractors to bludgeon us.

The other fearsome bomb-in-print often used to blow us asunder and restore the equanimity of the reading or listening public is defaming mischaracterization. Some of us have recently blown a gasket over comedian Chris Matthews’s determined go at employing that one on his evening show on MSNBC, dismissing us as imbeciles and “nutcases” who obnoxiously claim that “George W. Bush blew up the Twin Towers by pushing a button under his desk.” Make us sound absurd and we’ll go away, he assumedly thinks. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever have any of us on to even set the record straight as to what we’re really about. Thus, in effect, continue what must be the official policy of benignly ignoring us and our bothersome claims of physical laws being violated by the stock story of what happened and impossible anomalies galore demanding real investigation.

And no less than the ACLU consistently ignores our assertions of the obvious fact that the Constitutional guarantee to all citizens that due process in pursuit of justice was never carried out – in fact, was expressly forbidden – with regard to the egregious crimes of mega mass-murder and probable high treason committed on 9/11. Thus, no weapon wielded against us, and against the victimized American people, has proven more successful over the past decade than the regular media’s wholesale and determined silence in response to our heartfelt assertions, the same powered by some of the best scientific work, documentary journalism, and legal thinking of the new century. As a rule, the implicated highest-level establishment that now owns our national media dismissively answers us with silence, rarely and, in some cases, never acknowledging that we, with our reasoned and verifiable arguments, even exist. Thus, for example, our biggest events, even our scientifically-telling press briefings and conferences and our truly major publications, are seldom covered by the mainstream press, and never in meaningful substantive detail. And when they do mention us, it seems to be to mischaracterize us in the mind of the transfixed public as impertinent to their popular story – as somehow brain-damaged snake oil salesmen, vaguely sinister imposters.

The left-wing media, not the neo-con wannabe Kay’s people at all, do, however, similarly mischaracterize us and refuse to engage, or even inform themselves of, our highly-convincing (dangerously seductive?) major points of courtroom-ready evidence, preferring to mount straw-man arguments instead and charges that we’re simply “deranged” to beg to differ with the standard account that everyone knows of foreign hoodlums armed to the chin with scalpels, ironically having come from the very lands the establishment wanted to homicidally attack.

Thus, liberal media darling Matt Taibbi, contributing editor of hipster (read “cutesy pet”) mag Rolling Stone, blurbed on the cover as “an honest political observer”, graced our movement with an entire chapter in his 2008 not-exactly-laudatory book The Great Derangement, lambasted us with collectively championing a “Bush did it conspiracy”, and accused us wholesale of mounting “a derangement of the truth”. Whatever that means. Have you ever met any Truther who maintained Bush did it? Or, is he saying that what we variously are saying is really the truth, but just some deranged form thereof? Hard to tell! (He’s right, of course, that not every Truther speaks with the succinctness of a courtroom lawyer). But, once again, not one proffered piece or point of evidence is actually stated or disputed anywhere in this “masterful” writer’s rant, either. (And, yes, I have seen his “debates” (vapid shouting matches) with whomever on various online blogs since, as you very well might have done, too).

So, what do any of these possibly otherwise reasonable people have against the set of customs that’s supposed to set us in America apart, namely, the rule of law and properly and fairly investigating any crime when one is committed? They bend themselves out of shape to call us out as idiots beyond reasoning for insisting on that!

Meanwhile, real flesh-and-blood people keep dying in the thousands in the Middle East, virtually unnoticed in our “media”, officially in retaliation for – nothing! They did nothing to us! Our truthful evidence clearly and calmly indicates beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone that the principal accusers and beneficiaries themselves had to have committed the catastrophic acts. Because there is no one else who could have.

What, then, must our response be this Memorial Day, when our valiant frontline soldiers are honored for dying for the enhancement and ease of great corporations? Two-fold: to redouble our efforts to spread the humble truth we possess in the form of certain evidence, not just back and forth among ourselves and to blog subscribers and the relatively few still uncommitted to whatever extent, but to get it across, sent, delivered, shouted, handed, and spoken to everyone! Evertibe that breathes! Until it is as pervasive, as ubiquitous in the environment shared by all of us as the official lies it exposes and counters. Or, even more so! That will take money. That will take time. That will take commitment from all of us. But, we MUST!

And the second way to counter the lies, deadly neglect, and ignorance hurled against us is to deliberately include in our messages a strong element of shaming of those who are the guilty and cowardly abetting the guilty who enjoy comfort and sanctimony and, in some cases, honor, while hundreds of millions suffer and millions die senselessly for what they did to aggrandize the oppressive rule and unprecedented, outrageous prosperity of just a mere few hundred at most – themselves. There were no other real beneficiaries.

I should add that stating the latter sanction may not be in vain, because I now know that these articles a few of us post are scanned and considered far beyond our limited number of registered Grassroots Organizers and activists. Hello, world and vile culprits!

Read More