Saturday, December 31, 2016

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch the annotated version, which was named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. The creator did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I also recommend the BBC's terrific video on The Third Tower.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: Because some of our commenters have chosen to act like children, we are no longer allowing comments.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, September 17, 2016

David Ray Griffin Comes Up With a Brilliant Way to Dupe People Into Buying His New Book

Gotta hand it to him, this is a real con artist at work:

Not make it obvious, by means of the title, the cover, or the table of contents--that this is ultimately a 9-11 truth book.
However, you can see the fly rapidly heading towards the ointment in this following sentence:

The hope is that some people, not being aware of my notoriety, read enough of the first part of the book to see that I am not an idiot.
The book sounds like a real stomach--err, page-turner, from the title: Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World.  Suck 'em in with the Bush-bashing, and then switch to the 9-11 nuttery once you've got them all in a lather.  BTW, I suspect that even the Bush-haters will have problems with this part:

... American and the world are headed towards ruination because of the policies of the Bush-Cheney Administration--as continued in most cases by the Obama Administration...
 Gee, wonder why it's not the Obama-Biden administration?  Maybe because nobody thinks of Biden as the evil genius pulling the strings of the Obama puppet?

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Jill Stein Goes for the Crackpot Vote

With a call for a new 9-11 investigation, which contains the usual BS talking points:

The families and friends of those who were murdered on 9/11 deserve justice. They also deserve to know the truth.
Led by the families of those who died on 9/11, the American people wanted—and deserved—a comprehensive and independent inquiry into the attacks. The Bush administration initially said an inquiry was unnecessary, claiming that the perpetrators had been identified and their methods and motives were clear.
It is well known that the 9/11 Commission produced a report containing so many omissions and distortions that Harper's Magazine described it as "whitewash as public service"—a document that "defrauds the nation." The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission wrote a book just two years after the final commission report, saying, "We were set up to fail." The 9/11 Commission was not given enough money, time, or access to relevant classified information.
The usual misreading of what Kean and Hamilton really said:

"Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."
From what I have seen, the Rebunkers seem to be on Trump's side; probably because he's been friendly with Alex Jones.  I suspect that this will help Stein get Jon Gold's support.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Jones & Company Beclown the Europhysics News

In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article.  Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write:
2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
True enough as far as it goes, but it omits one critical detail: when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading.  As a practical matter, I suspect that the sprinklers in WTC-1 and WTC-2 were already not functioning after the plane impacts, but even if they were they would have been insufficient to put out the massive fires in those two buildings.

But after that, the errors and omissions abound.  Next paragraph:

3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing.  This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s (correction: 767s) when they hit the two towers.

4) Steel-framed high-rises are designed to be highly redundant structural systems. Thus, if a localized failure occurs, it does not result in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
Which ignores the unusual tube-in-tube design of the towers, which were not as capable of shifting the enormous loads they encountered on 9-11 as conventional skyscrapers.

The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion: The building dropped in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered and deposited mostly inside the building’s footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring in less than seven seconds.
All the signature features of an implosion?  Sorry, Dr Jones, but I have watched quite a few controlled demolition implosions of buildings before and there were several missing from WTC-7's collapse on 9-11:

1. No deafening explosions of the shaped charges which (Jones admits) are usually used in controlled demolitions.

2. No prior removal of the glass and other materials which might impede the collapse (not to mention the belongings inside the buiding.

3. No miles of detonation cord as is commonly used to ensure the simultaneous (or nearly) loss of load-bearing supports to the building.

And of course, when it comes to the towers, the usual focus on why the NIST report didn't go past the moment that collapse became inevitable:

Whereas NIST did attempt to analyze and model the collapse of WTC 7, it did not do so in the case of the Twin Towers. In NIST’s own words, “The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower....this sequence is referred to as the ‘probable collapsesequence,’ although it includes little analysis of the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”[5]
Gee, I don't know, maybe it's because the collapse became, you know, inevitable?  After that, there are too many variables to really measure, but it doesn't really matter.

Thus, the definitive report on the collapse of the Twin Towers contains no analysis of why the lower sections failed to arrest or even slow the descent of the upper sections—which NIST acknowledges “came down essentially in free fall” [5-6]—nor does it explain the various other phenomena observed during the collapses. When a group of petitioners filed a formal Request for Correction asking NIST to perform such analysis, NIST replied thatit was “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” because “the computer models [were] not able to converge on a solution.”
 If NIST really acknowledges that the Twin Towers came down "essentially in free fall" then bad on them.  As for why the lower sections failed to arrest (they did slow) the descent of the upper floors, it is blindingly obvious: The floors were connected to the exterior and central columns of the building.  As the weight from above collapsed on each floor, it pulled in on the connections until they snapped on the exterior.  Very quickly the exterior portions of the building peeled away from the floors, leaving nothing to support them.  This is why you can see, in aerial photographs of the devastation, large sections of the exterior walls virtually intact.

The references section contains four footnotes from JONES, and one from the ridiculous Bentham paper.  I hope that there will be some vigorous pushback on this article from the magazine's subscribers.

Sunday, August 07, 2016


Several years ago I posted on Deborah Lipstadt's books Denying the Holocaust and History on Trial, so I am rather excited to see the latter has been made into a movie staring Rachel Weisz. I will be standing in line for this one.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Twenty Eight Pages

The 28 redacted pages of the Congressional 9/11 Report (not the 9/11 Commission as commonly misunderstood) has been under discussion for several months, now it appears it may finally be released.

Twenty-eight pages of a 2002 Congressional report on the September 11, 2001 terror attacks -- a section which contains information regarding alleged Saudi ties -- will soon be released, a Democratic source confirms to CBS News.
The Obama administration must first decide whether or not to declassify the material, according to the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan. But House and Senate leadership then decides whether or not to release the material, and -- if they do decide to do so -- when and how it will be distributed.
Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, weighed in on the possibility that the White House could declassify the previously redacted pages within the next couple of days.
My prediction. These pages will shockingly show that Islamists on the Arabian Peninsula were behind the 9/11 attacks.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Has It Only Been Ten Years?

 A little more than a decade ago, I was looking for reviews of the then-current movie by Paul Greenglass, United 93.  As it happened a few writers for the Huffington Post had been invited to the Tribeca premiere and they wrote glowing reviews of the film.  But in the comments section I found numerous references to the internet sensation, Loose Change, which, I was assured would change my life forever.

It was late on a Friday afternoon, and so I watched Loose Change and sure enough it changed my life forever.  I wrote a post about it on my main blog, Brainster's:

Let me put this as bluntly as possible. If you believe the vast conspiracy theory of Loose Change, you are a nut. Ignoring for the moment the debunking provided by Popular Mechanics, consider that you would have to believe in a conspiracy involving hundreds of people concerning the biggest news event of this century so far, and that none of these people have come forward.
 As it happened, James B, a blogger whom I had cooperated with on a couple posts debunking the NY Times columnist Paul Krugman, sent me an email after my post, suggesting that we collaborate on a blog that he had already started, called Loose Change, Loose Screw.  As the marketing genius that I am, I came up with a better title, Screw Loose Change, although I admit, that most people seemed to miss the "Screw Loose" part, and seemed to think that the blog title was only a middle finger to Dylan and the boys.

What came next I certainly never predicted. We ended up with 10,000 hits in our first 24 hours.  It turned out that there was a huge public (and media) demand for a site that debunked the ridiculous claims of Loose Change.  Within the first few months, either James or I was interviewed on at least a dozen radio programs, including the BBC's World News Today.  We were cited in the 9-11 Fifth Anniversary issues of Time and US News and World Report.

In February of 2007, I collaborated with Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times to break the story that a Chandler, Arizona, conference of the 9-11 kooks was being hosted by a holocaust denier named Eric D. Williams.  Stephen was kind enough to six months later get me featured on the front cover of the Phoenix New Times, and no, I still haven't lost the beer belly, damnit!

Reflections, ten years later?  For starters, timing is everything.  Debunking the 9-11 conspiracy theories (and blogging) was hot in 2006, and James and I hopped on top of a wave.  We weren't the first (McKinney Sucks), and we weren't the best (Mark (Gravy) Roberts), but we showed up and got lucky.

Nowadays the conspiracy theories about 9-11 have been relegated to the lunatic fringe.  I'd like to take credit (along with James B, Gravy and others), but realistically they could never survive any kind of hard scrutiny, and they were doomed with Obama's election in 2008.

Thanks to James B, and thanks to the many other debunkers who have done the hard work. For the most part, I admit I have been Nelson Muntz.