The past two or three days, I had a lot of fun with a maximally stupid and dishonest
debunker!
His name on Facebook is
Daniel Grant Wilks.
He is a debunker, as I said, who likes to post against CD at WTC, Pentagon no-planers, nanothermite fans etc, so just my piece of cake.
Problem is, he doesn't understand the evidence, misrepresents it, and draws invalid conclusions. I frequently call him ion his errors, which makes him think I am a Truther, and he responds with insults and by throwing YouTubes and wildly copy&pasted stuff at me that barely ever addresses what I wrote.
In short, a guy with the mindset of a Truther, he is accidentally on the right side of history, but for all the wrong reasons.
The other day, he write a series of three or four comments at Facebook against me, where I recognized some of the text as copied from Steven Jones, some from someone arguing with Steven Jones, and some words apparently Daniel Grant Wilks' own commentary - but the lot without any credits, links or even just quote marks.
Simple googling revealed that he has lifted some of that stuff from a discussion at Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/in...d-in-dust-from-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.9485/
Then he wrote a comment that was unusually clear, correct and well-written - implausible that it was his post. He had not marked it as a quote, but it had to be one:
Daniel Grant Wilks (impostor) said:
Yes, this is true. The WTC steel ame from half a dozen or more different steel manufacturers: I remember Pittsburgh Steel for part of the exterior columns, LaClede Steel for the floor trusses. Some other company provided the rest of the exterior columns, two or so companies shared in providing core columns, and then you have steel in the foundations and elsewhere, for which yet other companies were contracted.
And indeed, different paints were specified: The floor trusses (LaClede) were specified as LaClede's shop primer - epoxy matrix, iron oxide, aluminium silicate, strontium chromate. The exterior colums were to be painted with Tnemec Red 69 or 99, which is alkyd resin with linseed oil, and pigments of iron oxide, zinc chromate, plus talc, silica and calcium aluminates. We do not know what paint(s) were specified for the core columns. We do not know what was specified for WTC7. No doubt other paints were used.
Again, I suspected immediately he had stolen this, so Google was my friend, and I found the author:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/in...om-the-9-11-wtc-catastrophe.9485/#post-220424
Yep, that's true: Wilks had plagiarized me, yours truly, Oystein!
So I asked him why he quoted Oystein, and why he didn't attribute the quote to Oystein, and whether this Oystein is an expert, an authority. Indeed, who is this Oystein?
He first gave evasive answers, babbling something about a good friend of his who was "a WTC7 building engineer", and the Port Authority, and he frequently said things like "both are correct" or "both quotes confirm...", without ever making the context clear - which "both" did he mean?
Anyway, I kept pressing on, inquiring about this Oystein, and today, he cleared things up:
Oystein, he claimed, is not his friend, the WTC7 building engineer, but Oystein is another WTC7 building engineer who had worked there prior to and during 9/11.
And he had claimed that Oystein got comic relief from my misrepresentation of the Oystein quote, and my inability to identify Oystein, and that I was too stupid to understand the context of what Oystein had written.
Man, what a hoot I had!
So today, about one and a half hours ago, I revealed to him (on Facebook) that I (Facebook name initials E.M.) am Oystein.
To prove it, I logged in at Metabunk and wrote a short message to Daniel Grant Wilks, identifying myself as E.M.
Now, you all get to guess who has put me on his block list
(popcorn)
