MarkyX
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,157
I'm putting this in a seperate thread because I'm mainly asking for feedback. The original version will have links supporting my claims on the website. If Brainster wants to post this on his Screw Loose Change blog, I have no problem with this.
ZEE ARTICLE
When you have to resort to personal attacks or worse, striking at one’s skill with the English language, others might view you as cornering yourself in the defensive because you cannot refute their claims or facts.
While this is common tactic among the low level 9/11 Deniers, such as the ones that obey the word of Alex Jones without question and wear their “Investigate 9/11” uniforms with pride, it is rare for someone high up in the 9/11 Denier pyramid to start resorting to such tactics. This brings us to the good news: Paul Joseph Watson has lowered himself to using these tactics in a recent article on Prison Planet.
Paul Joseph Watson is considered to be Alex Jones’ “Al-Zawahiri” and a highly respected member among the 9/11 Denier crowd. And if you are reading this Paul, don’t be so offended by the comparison with Al-Zawahiri. He doesn’t exist, just like Al-Qaeda, so why get angry?
In the article, he attacks the website Debunking911.com for being “littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.”
He doesn’t try to counter his claims or use any “evidence” for his side. He simply points at the spelling and grammatical error while yelling “He is wrong because he is misusing plurals!” As I stated earlier, if you have to resort to these types of attacks, you are demonstrating that you cannot counter someone’s argument.
The only bit of effort he tries to bring in any sort of discussion is the Pull It. Unfortunately for Paul, this section of the article shows his lack of research skills and reading comprehension. He uses a quote from Debunking911.com.
And he compares it the infamous Popular Mechanics article, quoting NIST saying “There was no firefighting in WTC7.”
There is a little problem with using this as an argument. If you are saying that Popular Mechanics debunks Debunking911.com claim, then you are essentially agreeing with what Popular Mechanics states and therefore, no 9/11 conspiracy theory. That is just one minor detail in the bigger picture.
He then writes, “Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?”
Apparently Paul does not understand that presence of firemen does not automatically mean they are putting out the fires. But why take my word for it? Let’s look what some firefighters at WTC7 had to say and a report.
In short, there wasn’t enough water pressure to fight the fires.
Let’s continue.
The firefighters at WTC7 were there because they were doing a search and rescue to …you guessed it, pull people out of there. They did want to fight the fires, but however were quite limited because of lack of water pressure, hence no “firefighting”. The building was also giving away signs of a possible collapse. They set up a collapse zone, got people out of the area, and waited for it to collapse. No causalities and all is well.
Not quite, Paul still can’t get rid of that “Pull It” bug. As I stated in the Screw Loose Change video and Frequently Stupid Theories document, “Pull It” is not a term used by controlled demolitions to destroy a building using explosives.
Brett Blanchard works in the controlled demolition industry. This is what he stated:
The Popular Mechanics book also addresses this.
America Rebuilds documentary also shows another example of “Pull It”
In the next paragraph, Paul brings up Steven Jones who was recently on paid leave by his University. Of course, many 9/11 Deniers like to compare Steven Jones to other great scientists, saying he is being persecuted for his “intellect”. Paul claims the reason for his paid leave was due to World Net Daily stating that Steven Jones wanted to violently overthrow the government. I didn’t even heard much about this, but apparently it wasn’t true and was pulled by World Net Daily.
However, I have a hunch that it might have little to do with this, but instead on the fact that Steven Jones didn’t talk to any materials/structural engineers, never did any experiments proving that thermite can cut in straight diagonal angles, never proving that the sulfur he found is truly from thermite instead of sulfur-based drywall, never proving that thermite is actually used in controlled demolition (name one incident), never proving that his photos contained molten steel, and creating a fictional “peer review group” to look like legitimate science.
No, it was the article World Net Daily reported that no one really knew about.
The next paragraph is my favorite, mainly because it deals with me. Paul is stupid enough to link to my 9/11 Deniers Speak Part 1/5 on YouTube and comments on the first audio clip I used involving Dylan Avery in Jack’s Blood show. I’m sure if you are reading this, you are quite aware what it is: Dylan and Jack laughing at the idea of people submitting to a combat-trained knife wielding lunatic who threatened the passengers that he had bombs. They also bring Chick Burlingame, mocking her for believing that her pilot fought for his life against “these deadly terrorists.”
He writes in the article that the video is “implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims.”
Paul doesn’t seem to understand the concept of “questioning” and “laughing”. You see Paul, asking questions such as why did the President testify for the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors are legitimate. I do agree that something like that needs to be answered. However, jumping into conclusions, which you can see the Jersey Girls do this in a self-promotion movie called 9/11 Press for Truth, will lead to nowhere.
But laughing? Laughing at the idea that people are scared ******** over 10,000 feet in the air with a few crazies speaking Arabic and wielding sharp steel? Did you also laugh with Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones at the 9/11 Conference in LA when Jim talks about Mark Bingham? What about Dylan Avery accusing Bernard Brown of sending his son to die on Flight 77?
These aren’t questions Paul. They are accusations that tried to hide themselves under a sheet known as the question mark. I’ll give you an example. Why don’t you ask Alex Jones if his wife is a whore? Just tell him you are “just asking questions”, no accusations are being made. Right?
On a final note, the last paragraph of the article also mentions the Billard Ball theory. Here is the quote:
Funny because the Billard Ball theory is created by Mechanical Engineer, Judy Wood, which is linked on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. Debunking911.com is actually refuting this claim on their website.
Talk about eating your own and having poor reading comprehension.
ZEE ARTICLE
When you have to resort to personal attacks or worse, striking at one’s skill with the English language, others might view you as cornering yourself in the defensive because you cannot refute their claims or facts.
While this is common tactic among the low level 9/11 Deniers, such as the ones that obey the word of Alex Jones without question and wear their “Investigate 9/11” uniforms with pride, it is rare for someone high up in the 9/11 Denier pyramid to start resorting to such tactics. This brings us to the good news: Paul Joseph Watson has lowered himself to using these tactics in a recent article on Prison Planet.
Paul Joseph Watson is considered to be Alex Jones’ “Al-Zawahiri” and a highly respected member among the 9/11 Denier crowd. And if you are reading this Paul, don’t be so offended by the comparison with Al-Zawahiri. He doesn’t exist, just like Al-Qaeda, so why get angry?
In the article, he attacks the website Debunking911.com for being “littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.”
He doesn’t try to counter his claims or use any “evidence” for his side. He simply points at the spelling and grammatical error while yelling “He is wrong because he is misusing plurals!” As I stated earlier, if you have to resort to these types of attacks, you are demonstrating that you cannot counter someone’s argument.
The only bit of effort he tries to bring in any sort of discussion is the Pull It. Unfortunately for Paul, this section of the article shows his lack of research skills and reading comprehension. He uses a quote from Debunking911.com.
And he compares it the infamous Popular Mechanics article, quoting NIST saying “There was no firefighting in WTC7.”
There is a little problem with using this as an argument. If you are saying that Popular Mechanics debunks Debunking911.com claim, then you are essentially agreeing with what Popular Mechanics states and therefore, no 9/11 conspiracy theory. That is just one minor detail in the bigger picture.
He then writes, “Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?”
Apparently Paul does not understand that presence of firemen does not automatically mean they are putting out the fires. But why take my word for it? Let’s look what some firefighters at WTC7 had to say and a report.
In short, there wasn’t enough water pressure to fight the fires.
Let’s continue.
The firefighters at WTC7 were there because they were doing a search and rescue to …you guessed it, pull people out of there. They did want to fight the fires, but however were quite limited because of lack of water pressure, hence no “firefighting”. The building was also giving away signs of a possible collapse. They set up a collapse zone, got people out of the area, and waited for it to collapse. No causalities and all is well.
Not quite, Paul still can’t get rid of that “Pull It” bug. As I stated in the Screw Loose Change video and Frequently Stupid Theories document, “Pull It” is not a term used by controlled demolitions to destroy a building using explosives.
Brett Blanchard works in the controlled demolition industry. This is what he stated:
The Popular Mechanics book also addresses this.
America Rebuilds documentary also shows another example of “Pull It”
In the next paragraph, Paul brings up Steven Jones who was recently on paid leave by his University. Of course, many 9/11 Deniers like to compare Steven Jones to other great scientists, saying he is being persecuted for his “intellect”. Paul claims the reason for his paid leave was due to World Net Daily stating that Steven Jones wanted to violently overthrow the government. I didn’t even heard much about this, but apparently it wasn’t true and was pulled by World Net Daily.
However, I have a hunch that it might have little to do with this, but instead on the fact that Steven Jones didn’t talk to any materials/structural engineers, never did any experiments proving that thermite can cut in straight diagonal angles, never proving that the sulfur he found is truly from thermite instead of sulfur-based drywall, never proving that thermite is actually used in controlled demolition (name one incident), never proving that his photos contained molten steel, and creating a fictional “peer review group” to look like legitimate science.
No, it was the article World Net Daily reported that no one really knew about.
The next paragraph is my favorite, mainly because it deals with me. Paul is stupid enough to link to my 9/11 Deniers Speak Part 1/5 on YouTube and comments on the first audio clip I used involving Dylan Avery in Jack’s Blood show. I’m sure if you are reading this, you are quite aware what it is: Dylan and Jack laughing at the idea of people submitting to a combat-trained knife wielding lunatic who threatened the passengers that he had bombs. They also bring Chick Burlingame, mocking her for believing that her pilot fought for his life against “these deadly terrorists.”
He writes in the article that the video is “implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims.”
Paul doesn’t seem to understand the concept of “questioning” and “laughing”. You see Paul, asking questions such as why did the President testify for the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors are legitimate. I do agree that something like that needs to be answered. However, jumping into conclusions, which you can see the Jersey Girls do this in a self-promotion movie called 9/11 Press for Truth, will lead to nowhere.
But laughing? Laughing at the idea that people are scared ******** over 10,000 feet in the air with a few crazies speaking Arabic and wielding sharp steel? Did you also laugh with Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones at the 9/11 Conference in LA when Jim talks about Mark Bingham? What about Dylan Avery accusing Bernard Brown of sending his son to die on Flight 77?
These aren’t questions Paul. They are accusations that tried to hide themselves under a sheet known as the question mark. I’ll give you an example. Why don’t you ask Alex Jones if his wife is a whore? Just tell him you are “just asking questions”, no accusations are being made. Right?
On a final note, the last paragraph of the article also mentions the Billard Ball theory. Here is the quote:
Funny because the Billard Ball theory is created by Mechanical Engineer, Judy Wood, which is linked on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. Debunking911.com is actually refuting this claim on their website.
Talk about eating your own and having poor reading comprehension.
Last edited:
