• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

'Off-Guardian' running a "9/11" series filled with 'truther' woo

boggis the cat

Thinker
B
Joined
Sep 14, 2016
Messages
163
Hello to all.

("boggis the cat" aka Jerome Fryer.)

I have been spending some time trying to counter a flood of heavily 'truther' biased articles that have been put up on this news blog style website: off-guardian.org

The editors / moderators have been asking me to write some sort of rebuttal to the 'truther' woo that is being peddled there, but I am not qualified to make a strong case for the no-conspiracy / physics is adequate argument. They have stuck up the usual old stuff, and the latest 'peer reviewed' bunk.

Is there anyone interested in having a look at what has been posted up already, and possibly cobbling something together for them? They seem quite willing to put up just about anything as an article (don't take my word for it, go look).

Also, if anything I have stated about the NIST reports is off then let me know (and / or comment on that site).

Some people were complaining about the lack of 'truther' action here -- so now's your chance to go and engage with the woo! :)
 
I had a look. It's mostly a hell-hole of unfettered lunacy, so no thanks.
 
When I went to the front page, I misread the subtitle as "Because facts should be scared". Somehow it made better sense than when I read it properly.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Oh yeah, even old junk from the Screw Loose Change blog. Shocking.
Click to expand...
Well, that was what the editors are claiming to be representative of the 'state of the art' in debunking explody nanothingies that produce no sound, emit no light, and aren't actually required according to the consensus among engineers.

Perhaps you can give them a suggestion for a better debunking article that they can use? :)
 
pgimeno said:
When I went to the front page, I misread the subtitle as "Because facts should be scared". Somehow it made better sense than when I read it properly.
Click to expand...
The original intent of the site was quite reasonable.

As the latest 'Russia scare' was being cranked up, The Guardian (theoretically a 'left' or 'liberal' media outlet) began producing the standard propaganda stuff. Some of we wet lefty types were grumbling about the lack of substance and eye-poppingly shocking spin in some of this stuff, in their comments section. Supposedly, such disputation and dissent is encouraged. However an onslaught of post-nuking began and this led to a war between readers (and some Russians who stumbled in from somewhere to register their outrage) on one side, and the editorial / moderator staff and an influx of 'patriot' type red-baiters on the other.

This 'off-Guardian' site was set up for we pinko weirdoes to whinge about the mainstream media, and in particular The Graun', shilling for "the man".

The Russia scare has turned to poo, so the propaganda war has sort of died back, and The Graun' has had a restoration to the default sanity levels to a large extent. I think that 'off-Guardian' decided that their new mission was to oppose anything denied in any way by the Western mainstream media.

Hence: 'truther' woo.
 
boggis the cat said:
The Graun' has had a restoration to the default sanity levels to a large extent.
Click to expand...


LOL, if only. Just read the junk they write about the US playing ISIS airforce the other day, same old NATO propaganda they spread on all topics Empire. And Off Guardian is still on the original mission for example with this stellar piece of analysis about the event.

They chose to expose their large readership to a bunch of info around the 15th anniversary, and got great feedback which is why they published some more, including a clownish debunking piece which indeed is the state of the art.

They'll be back to normal soon (or are already), don't worry.
 
Childlike Empress said:
LOL, if only. Just read the junk they write about the US playing ISIS airforce the other day, same old NATO propaganda they spread on all topics Empire.
Click to expand...
Sure, agreed (mostly -- nuance is required). But look at the comments on that article -- not exactly toeing the official line, but not getting arbitrarily nuked.
And Off Guardian is still on the original mission for example with this stellar piece of analysis about the event.
Click to expand...
That is partly reasonable, and partly Russian propaganda. Opposing narrative style to the mainstream media. That is fine by me, but it isn't neutral or objective. (And in fairness doesn't claim to be.)
They chose to expose their large readership to a bunch of info around the 15th anniversary, and got great feedback which is why they published some more, including a clownish debunking piece which indeed is the state of the art.

They'll be back to normal soon (or are already), don't worry.
Click to expand...
They "exposed their readership" to discredited, and largely insane, conspiracy theories. Some of their readership (*cough*) is capable of noting woo, and can stumble around the NIST report and manage to find the misrepresentations by themselves. Then some just do a 'drive-by' shoutout of "Truther morons!" (most cases).

I think they shot themselves in the foot with this guff. I would be really interested in whether they thought of this themselves, or whether some charitable soul handed it to them...
 
boggis the cat said:
They "exposed their readership" to discredited, and largely insane, conspiracy theories. Some of their readership (*cough*) is capable of noting woo, and can stumble around the NIST report and manage to find the misrepresentations by themselves. Then some just do a 'drive-by' shoutout of "Truther morons!" (most cases).
Click to expand...


I actually happened to skim a bit over the comments to the SLC article this morning (coincidently, independent of your thread here) and didn't have the impression that your input was needed or successful in saving them from the evil woo, and likely you agree on the latter which is why you came here to find more competence. Good luck, I can only say. The gang is mostly in retirement cracking free fall jokes. ;)
 
Childlike Empress said:
I actually happened to skim a bit over the comments to the SLC article this morning (coincidently, independent of your thread here) and didn't have the impression that your input was needed or successful in saving them from the evil woo, and likely you agree on the latter which is why you came here to find more competence.
Click to expand...

I've just skimmed over them, and noticed that the editorial staff has added critical footnotes to many of the posts that argue that WTC7's collapse was not due to explosives while not making any similar amendments to those arguing it was, and has even done the same to the SLC article. It seems that the editorial policy is quite explicitly biased in favour of truther arguments.

Dave
 
boggis the cat said:
Hello to all.

("boggis the cat" aka Jerome Fryer.)

I have been spending some time trying to counter a flood of heavily 'truther' biased articles that have been put up on this news blog style website: off-guardian.org

The editors / moderators have been asking me to write some sort of rebuttal to the 'truther' woo that is being peddled there, but I am not qualified to make a strong case for the no-conspiracy / physics is adequate argument. They have stuck up the usual old stuff, and the latest 'peer reviewed' bunk.

Is there anyone interested in having a look at what has been posted up already, and possibly cobbling something together for them? They seem quite willing to put up just about anything as an article (don't take my word for it, go look).

Also, if anything I have stated about the NIST reports is off then let me know (and / or comment on that site).

Some people were complaining about the lack of 'truther' action here -- so now's your chance to go and engage with the woo! :)
Click to expand...

Hi boggis. Chris Mohr has a more up to date set of debunking videos, as does cjnewson.
 
LSSBB said:
Hi boggis. Chris Mohr has a more up to date set of debunking videos, as does cjnewson.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

They want an article submitted, however. Dumping a link to a video then running is only allowed for the 'truther' side.

Am I understanding the NIST model validation process correctly?

(I realise that it's a waste of time, because they just move to the next thing that you have to "prove", but the fixation on the simplifications for steel heat transfer seems to be a major focus to bamboozle the lay-truther.)
 
Dave Rogers said:
I've just skimmed over them, and noticed that the editorial staff has added critical footnotes to many of the posts that argue that WTC7's collapse was not due to explosives while not making any similar amendments to those arguing it was, and has even done the same to the SLC article. It seems that the editorial policy is quite explicitly biased in favour of truther arguments.

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes, they are explicitly biased against the "official narrative". At least they are being open about this, and are willing to fence with me over this decision.

Seem to be taking a cue from RT and Russia Insider, by the way. (Moscow happy to take any opportunity to pee on US government shoes, with things as they are. Stupid doesn't matter, just flinging poo. Mixed metaphor, sort of...)
 
boggis the cat said:
Thanks.

They want an article submitted, however. Dumping a link to a video then running is only allowed for the 'truther' side.

Am I understanding the NIST model validation process correctly?

(I realise that it's a waste of time, because they just move to the next thing that you have to "prove", but the fixation on the simplifications for steel heat transfer seems to be a major focus to bamboozle the lay-truther.)
Click to expand...

Don't understand regarding NIST. They had a whole set of websites dedicated to their investigations of the WTC collapses at NIST.gov. Worth reading, however they can get pretty technical. Went on over a series of years, including some preliminary and some final results and addendums. Some Truthers disengenuosly attack results that were preliminary, or cherry pick from them for attack.

ETA: Some Truthers also repeatedly harp on creeds they don't understand, like freefall or symmetrical, or size of the hole at the Pentagon, even after repeatedly being pointed out that they don't know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I actually happened to skim a bit over the comments to the SLC article this morning (coincidently, independent of your thread here) and didn't have the impression that your input was needed or successful in saving them from the evil woo, and likely you agree on the latter which is why you came here to find more competence. Good luck, I can only say. The gang is mostly in retirement cracking free fall jokes. ;)
Click to expand...
Competence is always a better alternative to incompetence. I'm just a metrologist (not a miracle worker). :)

I thought that the 'truther' thing had died on its behind (take that, auto-censor!), so had to do a quick crib of why this dried-up husk of a corpse was being reanimated. Paint chips and paid-for stupid, apparently.

Bit of an annoying distraction from AGW and the toddlers-running-about-with-scissors international 'leadership' we are presently graced with, in my view. If Cheney would just die already we'd probably not have this problem, still...
 
The article / hatchet job I've been focusing on is titled: "Why did NIST decide WTC steel could not conduct heat?"

Quote-mined parts, laid out in a nice box:

“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

“The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

“Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab…the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K].” NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52​

Article continues:

You don’t need to be a professional scientist to know this is bunkum and a total disregard of basic physics.

Why does this matter? It matters a LOT. Changing the assumed conductivity of steel from its actual figure to zero would allow the model to produce much higher temperatures in the steel directly exposed to fire than would be possible in reality. It’s like calculating the amount of water you could get into a sieve at any one time by assuming the sieve has no holes. The model will show the sieve can be filled to the brim, but that is just so much garbage with no real-world application.

Just so with the temperatures of the steel. NIST needed to produce a model that allowed cool office fires of around 800deg to somehow produce enough heat in localised areas to weaken and buckle steel girders and struts. If they’d allowed the steel to behave normally and wick the heat away along its length they simply could not achieve this aim. Only by turning the assumed thermal conductivity to zero (the equivalent of assuming the sieve has no holes) could they get their model to create enough heat to do the buckling and weakening.

This is a huge problem. In fact it could not be a bigger problem. This bogus assumption that steel has zero thermal conductivity not only renders the NIST report as a whole deeply suspect, it entirely nullifies even the flawed basis for its “collapse by fire” hypothesis.

This is why so many scientists are calling for another investigation. They aren’t saying the gumment did it, they aren’t claiming a conspiracy, they just see huge errors in the previous investigation and want more work to be done.

Bottom line is NIST punched in false data that totally invalidated their model. The zero thermal conductivity issue alone is sufficient grounds for a new investigation.​

My response is, basically: the model works. (With context for the quote-mined parts, NIST pointing out the scope of the model etc.)
 
boggis the cat said:
Competence is always a better alternative to incompetence. I'm just a metrologist (not a miracle worker). :)

I thought that the 'truther' thing had died on its behind (take that, auto-censor!), so had to do a quick crib of why this dried-up husk of a corpse was being reanimated. Paint chips and paid-for stupid, apparently.

Bit of an annoying distraction from AGW and the toddlers-running-about-with-scissors international 'leadership' we are presently graced with, in my view. If Cheney would just die already we'd probably not have this problem, still...
Click to expand...


I think you know far less about the event than you think you do. Anyway, they have just published another article: OffGuardian’s 9/11 Articles: A Reader’s Point of View

That reader is quite thankful for the series and makes the case for the relevancy of the topic. I pretty much agree with what the person writes including the mentions of "pseudoskepticism". If you could get the bunch here to write a collective piece arguing coherently and civilized why that guy is wrong and it is a mistake to give publicity to "9/11 truth", I guess the chance is not bad that OG would publish it as a rebuttal. Again, good luck (especially on the first, harder part of the task).
 
people fooled by 9/11 truth claims - where is the evidence, lost in fantasy

Childlike Empress said:
I think you know far less about the event than you think you do. Anyway, they have just published another article: OffGuardian’s 9/11 Articles: A Reader’s Point of View

That reader is quite thankful for the series and makes the case for the relevancy of the topic. I pretty much agree with what the person writes including the mentions of "pseudoskepticism". If you could get the bunch here to write a collective piece arguing coherently and civilized why that guy is wrong and it is a mistake to give publicity to "9/11 truth", I guess the chance is not bad that OG would publish it as a rebuttal. Again, good luck (especially on the first, harder part of the task).
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand, but it appears you are still pushing 9/11 truth failed claims... 15 years?

What a load of BS, can't get over CIT being idiots and the failed insane NoC. The article is full of woo, easy to see. Falling for Crazy Idiot Team lies based on ignorance and BS, and now BS about 9/11. 9/11 truth claims in reruns.
There has undeniably been a cover up –
Click to expand...
Really, prove it OffGuardian BS artists of woo... lol
You posted proof of woo at the OffGuardian random woo generator, put in 9/11 truth claims, out comes BS at the level of CIT logic.

There are no valid 9/11 truth claims - never will post one, no one can't defend any; never will. 9/11 truth is a movement of lies based on the overwhelming ignorance of the followers, the believers who repeat the lies freely.

Post some claim, why are people fooled by lies, opinions and BS. Example posted proved off-guardian is peppered with BS, opinions, and woo.
9/11 truth in reruns. Is the OffGuardian like Alex Jones BS, or worse.

boggis the cat said:
... (from the off-guardian article)
This is a huge problem. In fact it could not be a bigger problem. This bogus assumption that steel has zero thermal conductivity ...
Click to expand...
The poor guys who make up the lies about NIST haven no useful knowledge of material science, and why steel fails quickly in fire.

Why not take your copper heatsink on his CPU and use a steel one...
What fools 9/11 truth followers they fall for the simple BS, and fail to see the 9/11 truth BS pushers have no useful knowledge in engineering, physics, math, material science, chemical engineering.

We go to college, or get education and training on these subjects because "common sense" and opinions don't hack it.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
I think you know far less about the event than you think you do. Anyway, they have just published another article: OffGuardian’s 9/11 Articles: A Reader’s Point of View

That reader is quite thankful for the series and makes the case for the relevancy of the topic. I pretty much agree with what the person writes including the mentions of "pseudoskepticism".
Click to expand...


I've visited your link and want to respond on a few of the questions that were posted.


1. What were their real motivations

Answer: Osama bin Laden Declared War on the United States

The fatwa reasons that "three facts that are known to everyone" compel war against the United States. First, the United States has been "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places." Second, the "crusader-Zionist alliance" has inflicted great devastation upon the Iraqi people. Third, the United States' goal is "to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there."
It concludes with instructions to Muslims everywhere:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.... every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/projects/enemy-detention/al-qaeda-declarations


2. The evidence that they actually boarded and hijacked those planes

Answer: Passenger Manifest


American 11 Passenger Manifest

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/a/a4/Flight_11_Manifest_a.jpg/427px-Flight_11_Manifest_a.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=File:Flight_11_Manifest_b.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/6/6c/Flight_11_Manifest_c.jpg/427px-Flight_11_Manifest_c.jpg


American 77 Passenger Manifest

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/8/8d/Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg/427px-Flight_77_Manifest_a.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/3/3e/Flight_77_Manifest_b.jpg/427px-Flight_77_Manifest_b.jpg


United 93 Passenger Manifest

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/1/1b/Flight_93_Manifest_a.jpg/427px-Flight_93_Manifest_a.jpg


United 175 Passenger Manifest

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/f/f6/Flight_175_Manifest_a.jpg/427px-Flight_175_Manifest_a.jpg


3. The responses of the US command structure in face of the attacks

Answer: Confusion! Our air defenses were not properly prepared to intercept civilian aircraft within the borders of the United States.


4. The details of the flight paths, altitudes and speeds of those planes

Answer: Aircraft Flight Profile Data


American 11 Flight Profile

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa11_radar_ground_track_s.jpg

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa11_altitude_profile_s.jpg


United 175 Flight Profile

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/ua175_ground_track_s.jpg

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/ua175_pressure_altitude_s.jpg


American 77 Flight Profile

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_flight_path_s.jpg

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_fdr_pressure_alt_s.jpg


United 93 Flight Profile

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_flight_path_s.jpg

http://911research.com/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_fdr_pressure_alt_s.jpg


I want to add that tampering with the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar. The B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.


5. The phonecalls that allegedly originated from those planes

Answer: The majority of phone calls were made from Airfones.


United 93 Phone Calls

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/UA93phonecallscopy-full.jpg
 
Last edited:
OffGuardian article. ... https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/19/29768/ ...
How equipped they were to carry out what was attributed to them,
Click to expand...
Gee, they wore clothes... 5 dollar knives...

What were their real motivations,
Click to expand...
To kill American, when and where UBL could do it. At least these JAQs are dumb enough to self-debunk, about CIT level of BS, the bottom of the pit of ignorance, or lower.
Dolt Mog is a dolt.


The evidence that they actually boarded and hijacked those planes,
Click to expand...
Gee Mog, are you trying to be an idiot, or does it come naturally. There is DNA evidence in PA and Pentagon, for each terrorist. Idiot article matches the woo of BS and opinions found at Off-Guardian examples found by CE.

Why can't Mog figure out anything, lazy, or an idiot.
The details of the flight paths, altitudes and speeds of those planes,
Click to expand...
Gee Mog, I have the FDR for 77 and 93, BINGO.
And Radar, also, for all four planes. Mog is a lazy idiot who spreads lies and BS.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
I'm not familiar with Off-Guardian but it seems like the UK version of giving mental patients Play-Doh in the day room to keep themselves busy.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I gave my 'short history' take on this site in a post up-thread.

The editors seem to have decided to expand the remit from media criticism to anything that opposes any consensus or 'official' position.

I await their series on the 'fake' Apollo programme, the incontrovertible evidence for why it was aliens that stuck something up Billy-Bob's fundament, and the present whereabouts of Elvis. Well, at least two out of the three. :)
 
boggis the cat said:
I gave my 'short history' take on this site in a post up-thread.

The editors seem to have decided to expand the remit from media criticism to anything that opposes any consensus or 'official' position.

I await their series on the 'fake' Apollo programme, the incontrovertible evidence for why it was aliens that stuck something up Billy-Bob's fundament, and the present whereabouts of Elvis. Well, at least two out of the three. :)
Click to expand...
oops, I wonder if a bunch of woo pushers will arrive to protect their fantasy, a 15 year old fantasy based on ignorance, bias, paranoia, and BS, etc, etc, ... (with respect to your post over there)
 
Childlike Empress said:
If you could get the bunch here to write a collective piece arguing coherently and civilized why that guy is wrong and it is a mistake to give publicity to "9/11 truth", I guess the chance is not bad that OG would publish it as a rebuttal. Again, good luck (especially on the first, harder part of the task).
Click to expand...

Why would I do that? (I am assuming you are counting me as part of "the bunch here", though I'm not quite sure how this doesn't apply to you as well: we're all members of this forum.)
Personally, I think the more publicity 9/11 "truth" gets, the better. The more people know about the pathetically weak arguments, the ignorance, the misunderstanding of physics in general and explosives in particular, the dishonesty, the total lack of any credible evidence and the absolute inability of any "truther" to come up with a complete and coherent explanation of their version of events, the more foolish the "truthers" will look..
Shout it from the rooftops! Please. Let's see what happpens. I, for one, don't think it will work out so well for the conspiracy-minded.
 
boggis the cat said:
Just so with the temperatures of the steel. NIST needed to produce a model that allowed cool office fires of around 800deg to somehow produce enough heat in localised areas to weaken and buckle steel girders and struts.
Click to expand...

On this small detail - presumably they're talking 600°F there, in which case they're miles wide of the mark. Flaming compartmentalised fires (houses, ofices etc) typically hit peak air temperatures at around 1000°C (1800F) and can maintain 600C for long periods of time. 600F is not that much hotter than the oven in your cooker can manage.
 
My guess is that they're assuming degrees F. Or just copying and pasting from somewhere with no idea there is any difference at all.

NIST, of course, use the SI units. I did point out the stupidity of asserting that this temperature (which is the air temperature, too) is in any way 'cool'.
 
I love those feedback loops. :)

boggis the cat has dropped the link to this thread a couple of times over there, and THEY CAME HERE WATCHING US. :eek:

Which inspired the latest article in their 9/11 series, entitled real skepticism versus pseudoskepticism: a cautionary tale and mostly about ... this thread.

At the end is a mail address for submissions and it seems I was right in assuming that a half-way quality work of THE top 9/11 debunking community on the net (and it is, boggis the cat, you came to the best place there is) has a good chance of being published there.

Maybe patience is running out a bit as it seems that the previous article was flooded by the known psycho-style ad hominem ravings of the usual suspects, some of which passed the moderation as example.

I'd say this is the last chance for any relevancy of the subforum clubhouse, and well, I wrote about my expectations already.

:w2: to the good people over at Off Guardian.
 
Last edited:
If they want a good example of why giving credence to 9.11 truth is nonsense, they need look no further than ... The Guardian. This was, like all things 9/11 "truth," tackled and addressed years ago.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate-change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?(4)).

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the New World Order, I would say that, wouldn’t I? It’s all part of the plot.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
I love those feedback loops. :)

boggis the cat has dropped the link to this thread a couple of times over there, and THEY CAME HERE WATCHING US. :eek:

Which inspired the latest article in their 9/11 series, entitled real skepticism versus pseudoskepticism: a cautionary tale and mostly about ... this thread.

At the end is a mail address for submissions and it seems I was right in assuming that a half-way quality work of THE top 9/11 debunking community on the net (and it is, boggis the cat, you came to the best place there is) has a good chance of being published there.

Maybe patience is running out a bit as it seems that the previous article was flooded by the known psycho-style ad hominem ravings of the usual suspects, some of which passed the moderation as example.

I'd say this is the last chance for any relevancy of the subforum clubhouse, and well, I wrote about my expectations already.

:w2: to the good people over at Off Guardian.
Click to expand...

How is the CIT clubhouse going? 9/11 truth is all talk. Which claims are you having problems debunking? 15 years, all talk, no evidence, 9/11 truth, the movement of lies based on the ignorance of the believers.

How is the that NoC fantasy going?

I don't understand how people fall for the failed claims, and then to feel good about being dumber than dirt, publish BS about how people who don't fall for the idiotic claims of 9/11 truth are Pseudo-skeptics.

9/11 truth claims don't need a skeptic to debunk them, they are self-debunking due to the evidence ignored by 9/11 truth. It is funny the OffGuardian's protectors of BS are upset 9/11 truth claims are not based on evidence, but big talk backed with idiotic ideas and paranoia.

OffGuardian is like PrisionPlanet, people spreading BS and opinions. I guess they need traffic up, or something.

But it is funny...
What we see in 9/11 truth cult members is repeating the tag-lines based on BS talk, no facts, no evidence.
Example... a truth nut at OffG...
A building falling symettrically into its own footprint like that is being demolished. The visible pre-collapse of the core (see the raised centre above the top floor) is an absolute give-away.
Click to expand...
It is not symmetrical, and did not fall in its own footprint. The doltish act of posting BS, repeating tag-lines googled in ignorance. There is no need to debunk repetitive lies and nonsense.

I can't find any 9/11 truth claims that are valid, and OffG is upset? Are they upset 9/11 truth cult member are blindly repeating BS like "its own footprint"? Do they realize that is bogus?

At least their tracking cookies are working, and maybe the increase in woo, as Alex Jones knows, will increase the bottom line. How is CIT doing?
 
Last edited:
I posted simple statements of fact with them:

That the Grozny and Dubai skyscraper fires involved reinforced concrete (not steel) structures.

The the fires involved the external cladding.

That the fires were fought.

Let's see how they respond.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I love those feedback loops. :)

boggis the cat has dropped the link to this thread a couple of times over there, and THEY CAME HERE WATCHING US. :eek:

Which inspired the latest article in their 9/11 series, entitled real skepticism versus pseudoskepticism: a cautionary tale and mostly about ... this thread.

At the end is a mail address for submissions and it seems I was right in assuming that a half-way quality work of THE top 9/11 debunking community on the net (and it is, boggis the cat, you came to the best place there is) has a good chance of being published there.
Click to expand...


I looked over the link and just wanted to comment on the following message from that link.

It’s easy to mistake one for the other, particularly in areas of specialty where we, as laypeople, have limited knowledge. If a scientist claims he has found thermite residue in the WTC dust, how easily do non-scientists evaluate that claim?
Click to expand...


Now, let's take a look here at what real expert investigators have revealed in regard to their WTC dust samples.

RJ Lee Group Confirms: No Evidence of Explosives and Thermite in its Dust Samples

No Thermite Found
The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn't find thermitic material. Other sampling of the pulverized dust by United States Geological Survey and RJ Lee did not report any evidence of thermite or explosives. It has been theorized the "thermite material" found was primer paint.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition. Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity).

More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey.


The RJ Group

The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/..._WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf


RJ Lee Group WTC Dust Sample Chart

http://www.wtcreflections.rjlg.com/a/i/wheel-lg.png


Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/
Click to expand...


It is very easy to debunk explosives and thermite as responsible for the destruction at WTC ground zero and it all comes down to some good old-fashioned undeniable facts and they are; WTC explosives and thermite claims are nothing more than fabrications for which no evidence (visual, audio, seismic, and hardware) exist.

.
 
Last edited:
OffGuardian is upset 9/11 truth claims are BS, so they attack those who know 9/11 truth claims are nonsense, and 9/11 truth claims are based on zero evidence.
But who needs evidence when you have grade-school mockery, right? Who needs real scepticism when pseudo-scepticism is cheaper, easier and endorsed by your TV?
Click to expand...
This is classic projection, or is Catte talking about 9/11 truth. Oops, TV, who has TV. 9/11 truth uses BS, lies, fantasy, youtubian BS videos, and google.

Grade-school mockery? Grad-School Mockery better? 9/11 truth is based on the ignorance of the followers who have no clue what evidence as they spread claims without thinking.

BlackCatte is upset there is no evidence for the pathetic claims by 9/11 truth; has to attack those who know there is no evidence for the idiotic claims.
Is OffG the international version of PrisonPlanet, or InfoWars, trying to act sophisticated as they spread woo? Or is this celebration of ignorance to get traffic up and make money from ads, attracting the dumbed down conspiracy theorists and treating them as if they were rational. Ignorance is coming out as an industry, the Internet hosing yellow journalist.
 
Last edited:
George Monbiot has already been attacked within this off-Guardian series for lack of political purity.

If you recall the Judean People's Front / People's Front of Judea riff in "The Life of Brian" then you'll know the principal issue with leftist in-fighting.
 
Childlike Empress said:
boggis the cat has dropped the link to this thread a couple of times over there, and THEY CAME HERE WATCHING US. :eek:
Click to expand...
It appears that they decided that this thread -- and only this thread -- is sufficient for evaluating the debunking that has gone into the 'truther' arguments (which are widely varied, with different initial plausibility).

This process of ignoring the wider context, then directing your criticism at a very narrow aspect of the debunking (or evidence that contradicts your argument), is a significant part of the problem that keeps the woo alive.
 
Childlike Empress said:
I love those feedback loops. :)

boggis the cat has dropped the link to this thread a couple of times over there, and THEY CAME HERE WATCHING US. :eek:

Which inspired the latest article in their 9/11 series, entitled real skepticism versus pseudoskepticism: a cautionary tale and mostly about ... this thread.

At the end is a mail address for submissions and it seems I was right in assuming that a half-way quality work of THE top 9/11 debunking community on the net (and it is, boggis the cat, you came to the best place there is) has a good chance of being published there.

Maybe patience is running out a bit as it seems that the previous article was flooded by the known psycho-style ad hominem ravings of the usual suspects, some of which passed the moderation as example.

I'd say this is the last chance for any relevancy of the subforum clubhouse, and well, I wrote about my expectations already.

:w2: to the good people over at Off Guardian.
Click to expand...

Hey CE, you mean as right as when you called freefall a matter of velocity/speed instead of acceleration?

Say, how's your exercise in Physics by popular opinion going on Twitter?
 
boggis the cat said:
It appears that they decided that this thread -- and only this thread -- is sufficient for evaluating the debunking that has gone into the 'truther' arguments (which are widely varied, with different initial plausibility).

This process of ignoring the wider context, then directing your criticism at a very narrow aspect of the debunking (or evidence that contradicts your argument), is a significant part of the problem that keeps the woo alive.
Click to expand...


It's exactly the other way around. The broader context as described in the Mog feedback is what is frequently ignored by "debunkers" - in fact some of those left that have some points to make (i.e. not mere hapless cult followers) explicitly refused to discuss anything out of their extremely narrow area of "interest", which is usually something about a sentence in a study answering to a study about some details of "controlled demolition", supposed to prove that the opponent is "a liar".

Another sign of this a fountain of links and quotes, usually hilited in yellow, focussing on one little aspect and, as Mog put it (paraphrasing) "taking official statements of proven liars as gospel truth".
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's exactly the other way around. The broader context as described in the Mog feedback is what is frequently ignored by "debunkers" - in fact some of those left that have some points to make (i.e. not mere hapless cult followers) explicitly refused to discuss anything out of their extremely narrow area of "interest", which is usually something about a sentence in a study answering to a study about some details of "controlled demolition", supposed to prove that the opponent is "a liar".

Another sign of this a fountain of links and quotes, usually hilited in yellow, focussing on one little aspect and, as Mog put it (paraphrasing) "taking official statements of proven liars as gospel truth".
Click to expand...

Nice blanket statement and mischaracterization. Was it written at freefall "speed"?
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's exactly the other way around. The broader context as described in the Mog feedback is what is frequently ignored by "debunkers" - in fact some of those left that have some points to make (i.e. not mere hapless cult followers) explicitly refused to discuss anything out of their extremely narrow area of "interest", which is usually something about a sentence in a study answering to a study about some details of "controlled demolition", supposed to prove that the opponent is "a liar".
Click to expand...


Somehow reminds me of the classic dialogue I had with Mark "Gravy" Roberts back in 2007 which settled the fate of the "debunker" movement.

q47JztL.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom