An Open Letter to a 9/11 Truther

Via The Muertos Blog:

First, before I get into the answers, I’d like to explain a few things, including my rationale both for responding to you and for presenting 9/11 debunking material on Twitter in the first place. I have been debunking conspiracy theories for over 6 years now, and I’ve come to realize that, for the most part, arguing with 9/11 Truthers is a waste of time.

Not only is there not a shred of evidence that 9/11 was an “inside job,” but to believe that it was a government conspiracy — whether of the MIHOP or LIHOP persuasion — requires an abrogation of logic and critical thinking so total that it becomes quite clear that “9/11 inside job” is essentially a faith-based proposition, like religion. I have no realistic hope of convincing you to abandon a basically religious belief. Therefore, I am not answering these questions in an attempt to convince you that 9/11 was not an “inside job.” I cannot do that. Only you can decide that you want to abandon conspiracism, and it’s clear you’re not there yet.

Why, then, do I occasionally post factual material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories on Twitter under the hashtag “#911Truth” — the activity which seems to have angered you? It is because I don’t want conspiracy theorists to monopolize the subject. You may not believe what I’m about to say, but 9/11 Truth, as a movement, is dying

Read More: The Muertos Blog

Latest posts by RedHerring (see all)

88 Comments on "An Open Letter to a 9/11 Truther"

  1. Misinformation | Feb 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

    The intro to this communication is long. If memory serves, it takes about an hour to get to the “meat” or “tofurkey” if you prefer. At least one-half of the principles in the discussion are a bit difficult to listen to (read, annoying). One could skip to the hour mark and get right into it but would miss a bit of context.

    • The “meat” and “tofurkey”? This sounds strangely like those code words terrorists use to communicate using online message boards.

  2. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that the official 9-11 story is lie after lie. 

  3.  For most people, 9/11 is an idea. Its not an event they’ve lived through. Its not a marker for the death of their family member. Or for people who can completely remove themselves from it, its a ” waste of time”.  When there are scientist presenting information that causes the group responsible for the official investigation to change its official report, it raises questions. VALID questions. You would think the largest attack on U.S. soil would have a rigorous investigation.

  4. ALL Governments LIE | Feb 25, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

    HA!  I just noticed who the person that posted this article to Disinfo… It was “RedHerring”. Same person that just posted several comments beneath the neighboring article about how fluoride is good for you!

    ‘Nuff said.

  5. Siichotic | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

    the biggest question to me, that this moron fails to address at all, is the destruction of building 7.  try to answer that one butthole

    • RedHerring | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:04 pm |

       Maybe next time try, just try, asking a question that doesn’t end in butthole?

      • Siichotic | Feb 26, 2012 at 8:21 am |

         i didn’t realize the use of the word butthole would have such a profound effect on you guys.  i’m impressed.  don’t forget the original content with which we’re discussing.  further proof that people just don’t get the whole picture

      •  Ive been going through the comments looking for your replies. Be honest – you wrote this just to get people to disagree with you, right?

    • Grownups just say asshole, asshole.

    • Siichotic ….if Building 7 was part of Inside Job conspiracy, then WHY was it knocked?  Everything they wanted to achieve was achieved with the knocking of Buildings 1 and 2.  I find it extremely hard to believe that the supposed conspirators would complicate and add more risk to an already crazily complex and risky operation (involving the logistical nightmare of synchronizing hijacked airplane impacts and explosive charges in open-view of the public) by knocking an extra building with NO strategic significance to the overall goals of the operation.  It just makes no sense whatsoever.  I have no special inclination to believe what I’m told about 9 11, but the scenario that most 9 11 Truthers espouse just doesn’t make any sense to me.  It doesn’t make sense that you would attempt to synchronize explosive charges with hijacked airplanes, when either one or the other would effectively have achieved the goal of the operation.  There’s just so much that could go wrong in that scenario – I don’t believe anyone would approach a false-flag attack in that manner.  (Is there any precedent, or anything comparable in the history books, to a public building being attacked simultaneously in two ways, with one meant to be understood by the public as the “real cause”, and the other to remain a secret?)

      • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

        Tristan, do you know what was inside of Building 7?  I would start there.

        Of course considering that it was destroyed in a manner entirely consistent with controlled demolition on 9/11, was part of the WTC complexes and housed so many spook houses and regulatory agencies (SEC) responsible for finding the missing 2.3 trillion (admitted on 9/10/01)  as well as investigating the Enron and Worldcom scandals and that all of the evidence was conveniently destroyed could have something to do with it.

        Also it appears that Building 7 should have come down in the pyroclastic (volcano like) flows of smoke created from the implosion of tower 1 and 2 but for some unknown reason it did not.  Had this occurred we may never have understood the reality of it’s implosion in time and again in the context of hiding one’s crimes on multiple levels it does in fact make sense to destroy the building on the same day.

        Oh one last thing, never before nor after has any steel framed hi rise collapsed due to fires alone, this fact alone warrants a new investigation.  How are we to believe that not just the towers but also a third building not struck by a plane (which would not fell the structures alone anyway) result in such obvious implosions when there is no historical precedence for fires being able to achieve such a feat even though there are numerous examples of massive fires burning for 24 hours plus in different steel framed structures throughout the world.  

        • Mysophobe | Feb 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |

          Agreed. WTC 7 and that particular wing of the Pentagon were the primary targets for the entire operation. The twin tower collapses and Shanksville were meant for misdirection and dramatic effect to be exploited later, nothing more.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

            Mysophobe.  I guess you are attempting humor again, but given the amount of life and liberty lost on that sad day and since, I’m not in the mood to humor your attempt.   Are you capable of explaining Building 7’s implosion in a manner befitting the known laws of physics or do you have another hypothesis?  What is your position on Building 7?

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm |

            If you are agreeing with Me I can’t tell, sorry I’m still dubious of your sincerity given your repeated spinning of everything I said in previous discussions.  Clarify your position please.  I don’t see the twin towers as misdirection or dramatic effect only at all.  Given that most people have never heard of building 7 and are likely comparably unmoved by the mysterious hole in the ground in shanksville, it would be critical for the dramatic traumatizing destruction of life and symbol of the towers in order to push through their insidious game plan for middle east domination as per the PNAC manifesto.    

          • Mysophobe | Feb 26, 2012 at 11:35 pm |

            No funny business here. Meant what I said. The video of the WTC 7 collapse does not agree with the official explanation. A structural engineer who questioned it a while back said “The symmetry (of the collapse footage) is the smoking gun.” Kinda stuck with me. The purpose of Shanksville was the “let’s roll” story. The first counterattack in the war on terror. Priming the pump.

      • Siichotic | Feb 26, 2012 at 8:16 am |

         you’re under the assumption that you understand 9/11.  i, by no means, understand the depths of it all fully.  but to assert that you understand the ‘strategic significance’ of an operation like that, please remember that this is america, the land of ignorance and people do not question shit.  if anything, i feel it was a test to see how far the american public would go in a time of crisis.  the truth is, it shows how weak, nimble, and utterly lame the american public is. 

        also to speak of how badly things could go wrong in that scenario…  please remember how ridiculous the following claims were as to the degree of scandal surrounding the events of that day.  if the operation itself was smooth, you would expect to find very little significant controversy from the mind of the public.  the fact is, whoever did plan 9/11 didn’t really care if it went smooth or not because they knew that people were scared and so wrapped up in their lives that no amount of truth would matter in the years to come

        and if i knew why 7 was knocked, i’d be more than happy to tell you.  doesn’t change the fact that it was, in fact, demolished… with purpose.

  6. 50 comments in 5… 4… 3…

  7. John Farmer, Jr., senior counsel to the Commission [ and Dean of Rutgers Law] stated that the Commission discovered that what government and military officials had told Congress, the
    Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was
    almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.

  8. Camron Wiltshire | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:09 pm |

    You’ve chosen to frame the issue in a religious context (strawman) so that anyone who is a “truther” (again strawman and composition fallacy, faux monolithic group which you maintain is real) needs “conversion” by you the self anointing one (messianic masturbation)  There is truly no need for these tactics unless your desire is to avoid the science and evidence contradicting the so called “official” report, and prefer to use the known disinformation tactics such as ad hominem and straw man arguments to avoid an authentic review of the facts.

    Lets just deal with those pesky facts then.

    Explain to me then how a 47 story tall steel framed structure.  Manages to fall through itself for the admitted 2.25 seconds of free fall (even NIST had to agree with David Chandler’s assessment.)

    This means there is not resistance for ~ 8 stories near the onset of collapse.  This is physically impossible without the utilization of controlled demolition.

    Building 7, it’s dimensions being,  300 feet in length, 610 feet in height and 140 feet in width. It falls through itself, a feat that would require over 400 welded connections/floor  to be severed within one/tenth of a second of one another enabling the global implosion obviously evidenced by anyone watching the evidence of the buildings destruction.

    How is it possible that random asymmetrical scattered fires are capable of severing steel welds and connections in such a perfect manner?  I would like for you to explain this to me as best you can.

    • RedHerring | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:21 pm |

      One of the points of the article is there is no point in debating because you are just cuting and pasting and sharing videos that you can’t understand. You will have no debate from me.

      • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 25, 2012 at 3:44 pm |

        I’m amazed disinfo let you post here given you are so obviously incapable of presenting a factual argument.

        So by your own “rules” you are shielded from having to defend your fantasies because anyone who disagrees with you is labeled a “truther” and they are “incapable” of understanding their own arguments?

        Wow, let me introduce you to this logical fallacy known as “circular logic” or “begging the question.”

        Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
        Claim C (the conclusion) is true.This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

        So your premise is flawed and makes sense given you are unwilling to even attempt to defend your nonsensical speculation.

        Big Fail Red Herring.

      • GoodDoktorBad | Feb 25, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

        Then why post the article at all?

        We’ll have no debate from you indeed……STFU

    • Tio Holtzman | Feb 25, 2012 at 3:56 pm |

      Really nothing about physics in the entire piece.  Or “physics” a “truther” “science?”  

    • way to stick with the facts. All we have to actually prove is the impossibility of free fall speeds of buildings. Yes the military grade thermite found in the remains and the unprecedented number of puts placed on the airlines, Larry Silverstiens insurance policy and admission on PBS that building 7 was “pulled” are all contributing factors in an investigation, but it starts with the raw undeniable fact that its fucking impossible for those buildings to fall that way.

      Its like Kennedy’s head going back and to the left when supposedly being shot from behind. Unfortunately we never got to the bottom of that one either.

    • Thank you! A debater who understands basic logic!


    so this is……

  10. Whoever wrote this blog claimed to answer the 10 questions. However none of the responses are answers at all. If anything your answers sound less credible than the conspiracy theories… which are only called that because they haven’t been proved yet. The Earth being round was a conspiracy at one point in history too. Whoever wrote this in my personal really makes the same arguments with zero evidence. Whereas the 9/11 truth movement actually provides evidence to its arguments. 

    • Tuna Ghost | Mar 1, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

      The Earth being round was a conspiracy at one point in history too.

      Um, no it wasn’t.  For one, ancient cultures like that found in Mesopotamia knew the earth was round.  For another, at no point did anyone think this knowledge was a “conspiracy”.  

      •  many churches of that time denied that it was actually round and that is was heresy to even question it so before you go opening your mouth , do the research .

  11. GoodDoktorBad | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

    The overall tone of this person is: “I am smart, everyone else is dumb. End of story…bitches.”

    Arrogance does not equate to wisdom no matter how much you rail about other peoples stupidity.
    To be “sure” about anything regarding this long argued subject is the ultimate in arrogance. It’s smacks of a personal agenda designed to make the writer feel more rightious via psuedo-intellectual bullying.

    The fact is, there are few who know what really went on…..and guess what, they’re not talking.

    • Quite frankly, I can relate to his tone. It isn’t easy being surrounded by stupid people who religiously believe ignorant, nonsensical bullshit. Listen, if you’re going to make a positive claim, the burden of proof lies on you. You think 9/11 is true? PROVE IT. You can’t just prance around asserting things as true when you don’t have the evidence to back it up. That is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

      Is it possible there was some kinda of inside thing going on? Certainly. But until it can be proven, you have no right to disparage intellectually honest and diligent people who demand your claims stand up to the rigors of investigation. As of yet, investigations have turned up nothing that points to 9/11 being an inside job.

    • Siichotic | Feb 26, 2012 at 8:25 am |

       finally, an intelligent poster…  (clapping)

    • Because no one is more modest than conspiracy nuts.

  12. mole_face | Feb 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm |

    911 debunkers claim that their stance is about evidence and they don’t have any emotional stake in the issue. But if that’s the case, why do they consider even LIHOP to be so far fetched? The only aspect of the attacks that differs from the “official story” in LIHOP theories is that a concerted effort was made to ignore the repeated warnings, as opposed to writing it all off as mass incompetence. Taking into consideration that the US government was the only entity to ever benefit from 911, attributing it to incompetence requires more faith than assuming it was deliberate.
    If a similar attack had happened in Russia or Iran, these same people would say that recognizing it as a staged attack was a simple matter of “common sense”. 

    • Misinformation | Feb 25, 2012 at 7:58 pm |

       The U.S. government was NOT the only beneficiary of 9/11

      • mole_face | Feb 25, 2012 at 11:07 pm |

        Ok then – can you at least concede that the US benefited the most by far?
        Aside from achieving a symbolic strike against the empire, the terrorists accomplished nothing but bringing hell down on their people. I guess you could argue that their ultimate goal was to ignite a global religious war between the western world and islam, but the attack just invited an even  more intrusive US military presence into the arab world and gave our rulers an excuse to set up concentration camps for muslims. Well played, guys.

  13. from the article–
    That means that the Truther argument, “Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel!” is simply irrelevant.—This is nonsense– it is relevant because there were pools of molten steel at the site- to ignore this or write it off as “irrelevant” is just plain stupid. I don’t believe all the truthers craziness but it sure seems that there’s alot of evidence that warrants more investigation.

  14. DeepCough | Feb 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

    Y’know what, let’s say the official story is true (not that I agree entirely with it), it does not add up that these terrorist attacks were in any way linked to Afghanistan or Iraq because the hijackers were predominantly from Saudi Arabia, and almost all terrorist attacks are state-sponsored. It is also a known fact that the American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is about opium and oil, big time resources. Let’s also take into account the fact that the 9/11 Commission report was formed three years after the event occurred (the attack on Pearl Harbor was investigated immediately by Congress–for good reason), and while it’s understandable that people are thoroughly dissatisfied with it, you have to give it credit for debunking the connection between Iraq and terrorism–even the claim of WMDs didn’t hold up. And the sweeping changes in domestic policy like the PATRIOT Act don’t make any sense when the military is being sent to other countries to fight terrorism (“We’re fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.” ~ George W. Bush). And finally, Osama bin Laden: he no longer makes sense as the culprit for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The fact that he was not formally charged by the FBI and the fact that his capture was deprioritized in the face of the alleged threat from Saddam Hussein (both of these men had connections with the U.S. government, it should be noted) shows that he was at best a scapegoat until someone else with better marketability came along. And why wasn’t Osama captured and tried for crimes against humanity, and then summarily executed? Am I supposed to believe that the Navy SEAL team got the right guy when the U.S. considers all Moslems to be “Islamofascists?” Even the people in Pakistan during that raid thought the Navy SEALs had the wrong guy, but we’ll never know that since the damn body was dumped into the ocean.

    What I’m saying here is that when it comes to intentions and consequences, Kant is correct in that these two things are connected to one another, but for all the good intentions in the campaign known as the “War on Terror” the consequences are profoundly fucked up. If ever there was a reason people would say that “9/11 was an inside job,” it’s due to the exploitation of government officials and private industry. Make fun of the zealots all you want, you ain’t gonna get any further with than you would with someone who thinks that all Moslems are capable of doing is self-destruction in the name of Allah. The fact that the writer of this article is a defector from the world of conspiracy theory doesn’t help his case with me, either, because he comes off as more of a joiner than anything else, and having found just one glaring discrepancy in what he thought was the “Truth” tells me he’s happy to jump the fence when the other side looks more popular and less crazy in comparison. Hell, if he knew anything about conspiracy theory, he’d at least know that there are no real conspiracy theories–all those people are doing at those shady Bilderberger meetings: it’s just business as usual.

    • At the end of the day, where someone is from is not the determinant for why they did something. Bin Laden himself was from Saudi Arabia, he was just kicked out and moved into Afghanistan. I doubt he did the recruiting himself, but he likely had contacts back home anyhow. The terrorist network isn’t exactly biased by country except to say that local focuses will generally use locals (i.e. you recruit pakistanis in pakistan, most of which won’t move up the terrorist ladder and will only do their thing in pakistan, but others fighting in pakistan are actually american and british converts).

      • DeepCough | Feb 26, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

        I’m afraid geography makes all the difference here: if you remember, before the official 9/11 Commission Report was released, the Bush administration sought to censor over 20 pages of it, and all because those pages stated how 19 of the 20 hijackers from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were from the country of–drum roll, please–Saudi Arabia. And that fact alone invites nothing but conspiracy theory speculation. And had the 9/11 Commission Report been released earlier, particularly before March 2003, the Iraq invasion never would have occurred at the very least.

  15. chinagreenelvis | Feb 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm |

    I did 9/11.


  16. Marklar_Prime | Feb 25, 2012 at 4:45 pm |

    Weak, irrational vomit.

  17. the screw loose change blog has always been a practice in emotional knee jerkery. Finding clips of Dylan Avery looking foolish followed by claims of ‘SEE WE DEBUNKED A TRUTHER’ 

    it’s sad, reaching, reactionary and a feedback loop of clinging to a clearly false government narrative. 

  18. My biggest problem with some 9/11 truthers is that they want
    people to accept every part of their story. For example I’ve heard and seen plenty of people attacked by 9/11 truthers because they didn’t accept every aspect of the 9/11 truth version of the attacks. Even when people have for the most part agreed with them that things were very odd they were attacked because they didn’t accept their exact version. I’ve seen people attacked who believed the government knew about the attacks beforehand yet they didn’t believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition who were attacked for being a “corporate shill”. Some 9/11 truthers are almost like religious fundamentalists
    in their beliefs and if you don’t believe every part of the story from their
    understanding you’re a “corporate shill”.

    I think it’s better to be skeptical because there are some odd
    things about the 9/11 attacks but doesn’t mean that you have to accept every aspect of the 9/11 truth version of the events. I’ve seen some of the most critical people of American foreign policy and corporations called “corporate shills” because they believed the Bush administration was incompetent rather than believe that remote controlled planes and cruise missiles were used on 9/11.

    That being said I think this blogger is
    naive if he believes that the government wouldn’t lie about anything. From what
    I’ve seen it seems more likely that the Bush administration just didn’t care
    about harm being done to the population. They didn’t care what happened after
    Hurricane Katrina or about the troops in Iraq. They had other priorities and
    protecting the American people wasn’t one of them. I’m sure they heard numerous
    warnings about possible attacks and just didn’t really care to do anything
    about it. If something happens, then something happens but they weren’t going
    to waste resources on dealing with it.There were numerous warnings that invading Iraq would increase terrorism but the Bush administration just didn’t care. Despite all their noble rhetoric to the contrary protecting the population wasn’t a big concern.

    • rileyrifle | Feb 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm |

       You have a very good point. Many truthers get a bit rabid at times, but so do many other groups such  as hardcore debunkers. The thing is, the feelings this event inspired in many people were strong feelings: hate, fear, grief, patriotism. There is a lot of passion behind those feelings and it is easy to get lost in them. However, every movement in history that has changed it has had distasteful elements at some time, I’m sure that zealotry (often on both sides) is frequently part of it.

      However, even if on gets attacked one must still search for the truth. Here it is that there were a hell of a lot of weird coincidences, inconsistencies and incongruent stories as to the events of and leading up to the day of September eleventh. A HELL of a lot….

      “It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and I don’t believe in coincidences” -V

  19. One thing about the 9/11 truth movement is that they believe
    that the 9/11 attacks were necessary for the US invasion of Afghanistan and
    Iraq. In reality they’re far from the truth. Just look at how past wars and
    military actions have been started like Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama,
    Grenada, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, just to name a few. It’s not necessary to suffer a
    major attack in order to go to war. In all the examples named above the
    government lied yet that was good enough. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident,
    that was completely fabricated, we had planes over Iraq, why couldn’t they have
    just claimed a plane got shot down or there was an attempted attack in Saudi
    Arabia against American military personnel? Instead we’re supposed to believe
    they orchestrated an attack that would’ve involved dozens maybe hundreds of
    people and just kept their fingers crossed that no one would say anything?

    Even if for some reason they needed some terrorist attack in
    the US in order to have an excuse to go to war, why would they orchestrate something
    that was so incredibly complicated and intricate when something much simpler
    would’ve worked? I’m sure if the OKC bombing was done by a foreigner that would’ve
    been enough of an excuse to go to war. Instead we’re supposed to believe they
    wanted to orchestrate something that could have gotten stopped at so many points?

    The only explanation I have heard from people is that money
    is used or death threats are being used to silence people. Besides the fact it
    still doesn’t physically stop someone from going to the news and spilling
    everything, it’s questionable at best. We’re supposed to believe that everyone
    was either scared into submission or paid off? What if someone just went to
    another country and spilled everything? Or what if someone didn’t believe the
    government was serious about their threats? There’s a thousand different
    reasons why that it doesn’t make any sense when something much simpler
    involving far less people could have worked to start a war.

    • rileyrifle | Feb 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm |

       I have one word for you, sir: Compartmentalization.

    • “There’s a thousand different reasons why that it doesn’t make any sense when something much simpler involving far less people could have worked to start a war.”

      It’s not a war, it’s a paradigm shift.  It’s endless war without restraint, and power consolidation over the formerly democratic republic of the USA.  PNAC wrote lovingly of a “new Pearl Harbor” because they knew it was the way to seize power and get their imperial agenda rammed through (1 year prior to the attacks). So people have thought about what works to achieve their objectives. 

      One war isn’t good enough, as should have been plainly obvious.  This is a war on Muslims and the middle east and south asia, the location of most of the world’s natural wealth.

      They may have simply looked the other way and allowed the attacks to succeed (unlikely), but they may have been assisted by real terrorist hijackers who made the whole thing work out for them and their imperial plans. If you already have a real-world terrorist attack happening against the twin towers (see whistleblower Randy Glass), then you don’t need something “simpler,” you need to make sure it works out in your interest. That appears to be the most likely explanation of the event.  It was a terrorist attack that was enhanced by as yet unnamed third parties (complete destruction of the towers with nanothermite explosives) so that the United States would “never forget” which they wil not. Ever.  And will continue waging wars on this pretext ad infinitum.

      You need to investigate the evidence before basing your own assumptions on speculation on how you compute odds and likelihoods.

  20. SparrowHawk | Feb 25, 2012 at 5:58 pm |

    As definitive as Cameron Wiltshire’s ‘’ reply was, it only obviated that the same logic and analysis must be applied to WTC1 & WTC2, as well. They were all quite obviously controlled demolitions to anyone who knows anything about controlled demolition. The damning fact that the Pentagon missile (rather than plane) was admitted to on live TV by Don Rumsfeld and a Pentagon officer only served to add gasoline to the bonfire of unremitting lies offered as official ‘truth.’ The bottom line is that ALL of the official conspiracy theory is a lie…that NONE of it can be proven…and that ALL you need to do understand all of this is to study the aftermath!

  21. Jay wiwchar | Feb 25, 2012 at 6:34 pm |

    It’s sad he completely ignores the science. And most of his other evidence is a play on words.
    It’s ludicrous to think there isn’t more to what the government has presented. It actually saddens me to see so many people just accept it happend. I could write about this all day. But like it being my religion that it’s a conspiracy, it’s his religion to be an idiot.

  22. Uncle Ruckus | Feb 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm |

    I love how he fails to mention building 7 completely, much like the 9/11 comision report! Heh heh!

    I’m not sure how he can say there’s “not a shred of evidence”. There’s a mountain of evidence. This guy just picks apart a few common, easily-debunked argument points that 9/11 truthers use, and he ignores the tricky ones. For example: The fact that WTC7 fell at freefall speed. Even if the fire weakened the structure enough to collapse it, there’s no way in hell it could have fallen that fast.

    He also ignores the study done by Steven E. Jones, which provides scientific evidence that the temperatures acheived were far beyond what could have been generated by the jet fuel, wood, carpets, etc that was burning. That’s SCIENCE, mother fucker!

    Oh, and how about all that molten metal that firefighters were finding in pools within the debris?

    De-bunkers are bad at their jobs! Ha ha!

  23. Uncle Ruckus | Feb 25, 2012 at 7:01 pm |

    I love how he fails to mention building 7 completely, much like the 9/11 comision report! Heh heh!

    I’m not sure how he can say there’s “not a shred of evidence”. There’s a
    mountain of evidence. This guy just picks apart a few common,
    easily-debunked argument points that 9/11 truthers use, and he ignores
    the tricky ones. For example: The fact that WTC7 fell at freefall speed.
    Even if the fire weakened the structure enough to collapse it, there’s
    no way in hell it could have fallen that fast.

    He also ignores the study done by Steven E. Jones, which provides
    scientific evidence that the temperatures acheived were far beyond what
    could have been generated by the jet fuel, wood, carpets, etc that was
    burning. That’s SCIENCE, fool!

    Oh, and how about all that molten metal that firefighters were
    finding in POOLS within the debris?

    De-bunkers are bad at their jobs! Ha ha!

    • rileyrifle | Feb 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm |

      Well, the “Debunkers” only seem to know how to debunk the BS that most “Truthers” already know are BS and ignore entirely.

      They never seem to want to take on the nitty-gritty factual evidence.

      There is heaps of evidence provided BY the government and they either ignore it or try to spin it.

  24. I don’t profess to know the truth about what really did or did not happen on 9/11. However, the signs of a government coverup are fairly obvious and IMO, in a decade, professing belief in The Official Version will get the credulous idiot making the claim the same size tinfoil hat as believing The Official Version of the JFK Assassination will get a person now. 

  25. Crazy Irish Dan . | Feb 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm |

    If only this dipshit was as ‘smart’ as he believes himself to be. I’m sure this guy has sat through the documentaries, read the books, and really tried to see if there was something there. For SURE he hasn’t been sitting there flinging mud after plugging ‘911 conspiracy debunked’ into Google for the Nth time.

    I don’t buy ANY theory wholesale, and things like Dr. Judy Wood’s recent disclosures definitely paint certain ‘evidence’ such as the ‘testing positive for Thermite residue’ boondoggle. However, the idea that the ‘world has moved on’, that ‘no one besides dipshit conspiracy theorists still believe this, and a decline in certain polls saying so is proof’, or that the Guv’s case is so fucking airtight that there’s ‘nothing to see here’, is just the typical pose of those who take anything the AP shits out or a White House mouthpiece says as Gospel. As Clyde Lewis has pointed out, there was a time when the ‘official story’ – ie that spat out of the mouth of those most likely to be held to task for what’s going on – was the weakest of the arguments. The idea that the government can and will tell you that it does not tell the citizenry anything close to ‘The Truth’ as a part of it’s ingrained ‘national socialism’ – er, ‘scuse me, ‘national security’ – policy, yet it told “The Truth” on that day and that day only, apparently doesn’t strike many of these ‘skeptics’ as contradictory.

    Really, the end of the matter is, this is nothing other than getting some attention by trolling 911 Truthers (and really, if that’s the T-shirt you’re wearing, time to take off the training wheels by now!) – because that’s the only thing that will garner his blog any attention. Classic internet troll. Yawn. What’s next, ‘Rickrolling 911 Truthers!’?

    Not that that’s the only thing he writes about though! His blog is a gumbo of various topics…oh, wait, no, it’s debunking and that’s about it.

    Recent Posts
    The Conspiracy World Is Changing. Are You Ready For It?An Open Letter to a 9/11 Truther. (UPDATED!)From The LOL File: A Conspiracy Theorist’s Amusing About-Face.My Response to the Douglas Mallette Sweden Lecture Controversy. (UPDATED!)Legions of the Disappeared: Real-Life Missing Persons (Part II).Muertos’s End of the Year Wrap-Up Podcast!Merry Christmas from Conspiracy Theorists!Legions of the Disappeared: Real-Life Missing Persons (Part I). (UPDATED!)The Truth About 9/11 Truth…And Debunking.JFK: 100 Days of Debunking on Twitter.

  26. Anthony Lease | Feb 25, 2012 at 7:45 pm |

    Your a fucking queer there is no shred of evidence it’s an inside job? What about the literal tons of thermite in the wreck? What about it free falling in minutes and people inside saying they heard bombs go off in the lobby ? What about the fact that the lobby was destroyed before the fire even hit there. What about the no evidence saying it was al Qaeda? What about the no proff on al qaeda existence? What about the fact that we instantly knew is was Osama in iraq? What about the bush families close connections with the bin ladens? What about world trade center7 that fell for no reason and no reason was ever told? Or what about the report on the trade centers how 7 wasn’t even in the report? How did Osama who lives in a cave do this? Your a dumbass I highly doubt you have de bunking anything for 6 years. Open your mind you prick your an idiot. Your whole entire article makes no sense there is no possible way to de bunk the 911 conspiracy. What about how they released the Vietnam classified documents and it says there was no reason for going to war? You don’t think they would do it again? You sir are by far an ignorant dumbass with a blog

  27. most religions supposedly explain nature by adding an outside agency for it’s existence. So where is the religion in doubting the official version of events? 

  28. muck monster | Feb 27, 2012 at 12:09 am |

     This guy wouldn’t know “truth” if two planes destroyed three buildings and kicked him in the balls…

  29. Ture the Truthers haven’t got the smoking gun or guns
    but you’d have to be a moron (aka sheeple)
    to not acknowledge that something is rotten at the WTC complex

    if it wasn’t an inside job
    then the US.Gov wasted trillions of $$$ on their 30 intelligence agencies
    and the people responsible for the incompetent response should have been fired
    at the very least punished
    for the misuse of government funds and dereliction of duty
    and the fact that blame for incompetence was laid at no one’s feet
    remains a classic Amerikan mystery

    go back to sleep Amerika
    your government is in control

    • Jin The Ninja | Feb 27, 2012 at 5:17 am |

      hao jiu bu jian!

      and yes, you are right- it’s grossly naive and/or ignorant to believe in the ‘official’ version.

    • I know…the article would have been better titled “A Bitter Debunkers Rant Aimed At The People Who Still Question The Gaping Holes In The Official Story That Even The Commission Panel Has Admitted Remain”.

      You know what…? We have nothing to answer for. We don’t need to defend having questions. The people who left the questions unanswered have something to answer for. They have something to defend…or at least explain…and they’ve refused to…constantly shifting the debate to debunking this potential explanation or that potential explanation. Never an actual alternative explanation of their own…other than a blanket acceptance of the already thoroughly discredited Commission report. I’m sorry…when even the panel that wrote it shakes their heads and apologizes for their shoddy workmanship on the report…I don’t feel like I need the approval of some basement troll before I ask additional questions and expect more solid answers than were offered last time.

  30. Calypso_1 | Feb 27, 2012 at 1:47 am |

    “What possible strategic interest would the United States have had at stake in Afghanistan prior to September 11? If you think 9/11 was a pretext to attain some other objective, what was that objective, and why is it so hard to find? ”

    The Great Game
    Geopolitics  101

    • muck monster | Feb 27, 2012 at 2:28 am |

       poppy production,lithium in Afghanistan and the oil pipeline.  Not so hard to find…

  31. we need a lab | Feb 27, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

    building 7!
     nuff said.

  32. The idea that a purely secular notion is religious generally comes from an evangelical or neo-conservative christian view that can’t comprehend of a view point being non religious. Thus, crying religious persecution when there is none. But there is also vast stigma associated with conspiracy theories. Everyone should understand that the OFFICIAL STORY is itself a conspiracy theory. It’s just the official one. The psychological standpoint that people NEED to believe in conspiracy theories is seriously flawed. Like PARANOIA, it is classified as a psychological delusion, but has proven to be justified time and time again. The classic analogy of how three people keep a secret, by one killing the other two has been overshadowed by a litany of government misdeeds that were carried out in secret and only became unburied by people digging them up through the Freedom of Information Act, investigation footwork and interviews that took years and years to find the right info and people. When ANY government does something in secret, whether in the interest of “national security” or not, whether you think it’s the right thing or not, is a CONSPIRACY. Before it’s proven, logically, it’s a THEORY. Did you know that when Christopher Columbus, known by many at the time as “the Butcher,” sailed the ocean blue in 1492, we already knew the earth was round? The scientific community had CENTURIES, let me say that again, C-E-N-T-U-R-I-E-S before PROVEN it was round beyond a reasonable doubt. Like, if it had gone to a present day court, it would have been ruled unequivocally the earth was, in fact, round. But the thing was, there were SO many OTHER people already in the world that were greedy and uneducated but in places of power and influence, that they thought the idea that the earth was round was a conspiracy theory made by enemies who wanted to take over control of the major spice routes. Which is, of course, what the Spanish Queen was trying to do by sending Columbus on his route. Yes, if you look up 9/11, you will likely run into a great deal of theories that are false. A major factor of counter intelligence is that when something you don’t like comes out, to put a great many similar false things out with it under the same guise to cast doubt on the original. It’s about reading between the lines. It’s about asserting basic rules of logic. As in according to the LAWS OF PHYSICS, building’s cannot fall that fast unless they’re falling FROM THE BOTTOM UP. This was actually brought up in a court case and was accepted. The great thing about all these wackjobs who think 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, is most of them didn’t know or completely forgot about the 1993 WTC bombing, which the FBI has actually admitted to being behind. What was the plan again less than 10 years before the next attempt? Oh yeah, to blame it on Islamic extremists, that’s right!

  33. Way to keep the pot boiling, mr debunker. It’s really amusing how these anti-truther-truthers can’t see they’re victims of the same psychological mechanisms as rabid conspiracysts.
    And the use of ridicule does not help their case AT ALL – that is, if they actually want it to be closed, rather than function as a platform for feeling superior.

  34. For years, people made the same claims about Pearl Harbor. When (thanks to FoIA) The information came out that there might be a lot more truth to it than not… those theories became something more.  I am not going to try to claim 9/11 was inside or not… I do know there are a lot of facts missing… and I am never naive enough to have blind faith in what my government tells me.

  35. If he want’s to convince someone, he should not insult them and call them part of “the fringe.”  Because I may have questions and the supposed majority don’t, I’m wrong? Hail! Hail! Hail!

  36. Jimmyz619 | Feb 28, 2012 at 7:38 pm |

    why waste your time replying to this. the guys name is Redherring…

  37. The so-called “debunker” is a faith based idiot.  

    9/11 Cluster Bomb From 9/11’s “Terror Czar” Richard A. Clarke

    Ten years late, former Bush and Clinton administration official Richard Clarke has gone on record about the cover-up at the CIA regarding the “San Diego Cell.” Recall that two of the alleged hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Kalid al-Mihdhar were known Al Qaeda members who held “multi entry US visas” in their possession (issued by our own State Department). In his recent accounting Richard Clarke falls just short of accusing George Tenet and Co. of high treason. The filmmakers behind 9/11 Press For Truth interviewed Clarke for a new upcoming investigation called Secrecy Kills Clarke’s statements are up on Youtube.” The two hijackers entered the United States 16 months prior to the attacks, after being monitored in Malaysia at a meeting of known Al Qaeda operatives. The CIA received reports of their identities, and then deliberately hid this information from FBI as well as from Clarke’s office. Facts most damaging to the CIA in Clarke’s report. 1) Numerous personnel at CIA knew about the Al Qaeda operatives living in San Diego. Clarke: “It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the significance of it. No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director.”2) Richard Clarke, as the chief counterterrorism advisor to the White House would automatically receive all reports unless there was active interference to prevent him from receiving the intelligence. Clarke: “Unless someone intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution, I would automatically get it… For me to this day it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months… We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information.” 3) That the active participation of the Saudis can be factored in, either as a cover story or as the true explanation of their role vis a vis al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Clarke speculates that the CIA attempted to “flip” the two Al Qaeda agents using Saudi intelligence to approach them. The use of foreign agents on US soil would get around the legal restriction barring the CIA from operating here? This theory of Clarke’s seems unsupportable for two reasons. 1) They did not “flip” them. 2) Having not flipped them, the Al Qaeda men were left to go about their business unmolested for fifteen months after either refusing to be compromised or just ignoring further contact, as the record so far seems to show. With how much veracity was this alleged “flipping” attempted? However, as a cover story used to convince “fifty, 5-0” underlings that what they were doing was legitimate the idea has merit. As an excuse to float, and to cut off inquiry, the cover story seems plausible and plausibly deniable…

  38. rick thomas | Feb 29, 2012 at 10:55 am |

    after three paragraphs of abject projection, i was done with it

  39. @ The Muertos Blog,

    Agreed arguing with 911 Truthers is indeed a waste of time. I’ve gradually come to realize what that group is all about. The adherents come in two basic flavors:
    The “Sarges” – A mix of intellectually dishonest disinfo agents and profiteers.
    The “Sad Sacks” – All flunkies of Physics 101, of Boolean Algebra, and of the scientific method.

  40. Happyjack712 | Aug 4, 2012 at 7:44 am |

    hi red herring  -does blind faith in the government approved official theory count as religious too?

Comments are closed.