Who Feels Like Debunking a Debunker Debunker?

OldTigerCub

Striped Shapeshifting Reptoid
OldTigerCub
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,619
Poster Paulie C. has put up a link at 911blogger advertising his own blog and a post thereon that takes a crack at debunking the Mechanics Illustrated Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts".

I realize that the Popular Mechanics "Debunking" book is old hat and has been rebutted by many. However, the book is still prominently displayed in chain book stores and so I thought it worthwhile that someone with a journalistic background go over some of the problems in the Hearst book.

Please see my essay
Click to expand...

The link to his essay is http://911disinfo.blogspot.com

Scanning through his blog post, it looks like most of the usual twoofer bad science that we see so much of, though he does get off to a good start, and by that I mean humorous, with one thing I had not seen before. He asks how the hijackers knew it wasn't going to rain.

How could pilots with very poor training have managed to execute the 9/11 attacks so precisely? Hearst writers have the answer: The hijackers "did not have to perform what flight-training professionals consider to be the three most difficult aspects of flying: taking off, flying through inclement weather, and landing."

So say Popular Mechanics writers in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Hearst Books, 2006). Though several of the alleged hijackers reportedly were certified for instrument flying, the PM writers seem wary that the men could have pulled off such sensational maneuvers in bad weather. But, wonders British journalist Ian Henshall, in 9/11 Revealed: the New Evidence (Carroll and Graf, 2007), how did the hijackers know it wouldn't rain?
Click to expand...

I personally got a good chuckle from that. My eyes are tired from driving, so I haven't thoroughly read the rest of his post yet, but I thought I'd point it out for anyone who feels like killing a little time pointing out his errors, something he actually invited, by the way....

Edit: I incorrectly named the magazine as Mechanics Illustrated instead of Popular Mechanics...:blush:
Corrected with strike-through.
 
Last edited:
Debunking a Debunker Debunker? That is triple debunkity! A federally protected right in most states and Puerto Rico. :)
 
Disinfo:The Truther's term for all evidence that blows the 9/11 conspiracy crap to hell.
 
Check out this priceless quote:

This is a false claim. The NIST did not say the damage was inconsistent with explosives or bombs. The agency did not investigate that possibility (except for a "small bomb" scenario that is essentially irrelevant).
Click to expand...
I love that parenthetical expression.
 
Last edited:
Anti-sophist said:
Check out this priceless quote:

This is a false claim. The NIST did not say the damage was inconsistent with explosives or bombs. The agency did not investigate that possibility (except for a "small bomb" scenario that is essentially irrelevant).
Click to expand...

I love that parenthetical expression.
Click to expand...


Hey, yeah! NIST didn't say the damage was inconsistent with an infinite number of scenarios, both probable and fanciful. That's not how science works! Very suspicious...
 
The truth movement is moving into its bigfoot stage. I wonder if they will ever find scat from bigfoot.

I was wondering where all the 9/11 truth scat was to prove 9/11 truth exists! You have found it. http://911disinfo.blogspot.com and it is still warm.
 
I have only one thing to say.

someone try to say "debunking a debunker debunker" 3 times really fast
 
So say Popular Mechanics writers in Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Hearst Books, 2006). Though several of the alleged hijackers reportedly were certified for instrument flying, the PM writers seem wary that the men could have pulled off such sensational maneuvers in bad weather. But, wonders British journalist Ian Henshall, in 9/11 Revealed: the New Evidence (Carroll and Graf, 2007), how did the hijackers know it wouldn't rain?
Click to expand...

Obviously "The Weather Network" was in on it!!!!!111!1eleventy!11
 
Jones posted in the comments that he wants him to submit it for his journal, yeah, it is definitely PhD dissertation quality.
 
All this debunking. :confused:

Can someone please finally explain to me what is so wrong with having one bed on top of another?
 
JamesB said:
Jones posted in the comments that he wants him to submit it for his journal, yeah, it is definitely PhD dissertation quality.
Click to expand...

PEER Reviewed!!!!1!!!!111! [twoofer mode] take taht debunckr3s!!!!![/twoofer mode]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom