THIS BLOG IS NOW CLOSED.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue
Abstract
When the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center complex collapsed on September 11, 2001, they exhibited numerous features that several researchers have identified as being consistent with controlled demolition with explosives. However, others have argued that the Towers could not have been destroyed via explosives, noting that the collapse events lacked a critical feature of explosive demolition: sounds of explosions. The absence of these sounds, it’s argued, means explosives could not have played a role in the destruction of the buildings. In this paper, we examine this argument at length and show it to be groundless. We demonstrate that not only can explosive sounds be heard, but that even if this argument were correct, the entire premise of dismissing the demolition hypothesis based on this argument is fallacious to begin with. We also demonstrate that the official investigation into the destruction of these buildings failed to adequately consider this evidence as well, and therefore renders the conclusions of said investigation unfounded. The theory of controlled demolition with explosives has abundant evidence to support it, and this body of evidence does indeed include the sounds produced during the collapses.
[Read the full paper here.]
When the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center complex collapsed on September 11, 2001, they exhibited numerous features that several researchers have identified as being consistent with controlled demolition with explosives. However, others have argued that the Towers could not have been destroyed via explosives, noting that the collapse events lacked a critical feature of explosive demolition: sounds of explosions. The absence of these sounds, it’s argued, means explosives could not have played a role in the destruction of the buildings. In this paper, we examine this argument at length and show it to be groundless. We demonstrate that not only can explosive sounds be heard, but that even if this argument were correct, the entire premise of dismissing the demolition hypothesis based on this argument is fallacious to begin with. We also demonstrate that the official investigation into the destruction of these buildings failed to adequately consider this evidence as well, and therefore renders the conclusions of said investigation unfounded. The theory of controlled demolition with explosives has abundant evidence to support it, and this body of evidence does indeed include the sounds produced during the collapses.
[Read the full paper here.]
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Support Myles Power and Share His Story
The story is a follows:
Over the past two months I have been making a series of videos critical of the documentary House of Numbers. I gave examples of how the documentary edited people mid-sentence to change the meaning of what they are saying, lied about the sequence and dates of a series of HIV tests in order to convince people that the tests are useless, and missed out vital information about the death of a little girl from AIDS related illnesses, but allowed her now deceased mother to tell people the documentary not to take their anti-viral medication. These videos are non-profit and made for educational purposes and fall well within fair use, yet over the past week, multiple DMCAs have been filed against them.
The first DMCA filed against me was from Liam Scheff who starred in part 5 of my video series. Liam believes that my videos are not protected under fair use because they are not made for educational purposes, but instead for propaganda. Over the last week, Liam has been constantly posting on my Facebook and has called me a retard, a cunt, a little bitch and, of course, a paid shill. Yet at the same time believes that I have been slandering him. What is also bizarre is that even though Liam has made it clear of his intentions to drag me through the courts, at the same time he does not think I am a real person but part of Myles Power inc. Liam later went on to remove his DMCA, but by filing it in the first place he has left himself open to legal action.
As soon as part 5 was restored, it was taken immediately down by Martin Penny and the people at Knowledge Matters, who then decided to file 2 more DMCA takedowns against part 1 and 2. I want to take this time to remind people that there are multiple copies of House of Numbers uploaded to YouTube. If Martin Penny and the people at Knowledge Matters truly thought I was infringing copyright, then why are they not going after people who uploaded the entire movie? It is very clear that these people are trying to silence my criticism. For those who don't know, Martin Penny is the exclusive director of House of Numbers and a multimillionaire from Leeds who used to be the CEO of GHD. What's interesting is that Martin is now a chairman at OHS Ltd - one of the leading health, safety and environmental consultancies who have worked for the NHS.
To recap, one of the chairmen for a company that advises the NHS is an AIDS denialist who is actively trying silence me.
If you think this is unacceptable can I ask that you share my story to anyone who will listen.
Thank you
MylesAs someone who has had his own share of false-copyright issues, I understand how f*cked up this is. Please support Myles and his struggle with these con artists.
Monday, December 16, 2013
How to Debunk DEW Arguments
One of the most frustrating claims I hear from
DEW supporters is that "you need to read Judy Wood's book before you can
critique her arguments." They of course ignore the fact that she's had her
arguments debunked over and over again for the
past several years, and to the best of my knowledge these critiques of her work
have gone unrefuted. But DEW supporters seem to think that if you don't debunk
Dr. Wood's book, you haven’t debunked Dr. Wood. This would only be true if
there was some kind of new phenomenal evidence presented in her book that has
never been discussed elsewhere by her in her online articles. I’ll freely admit
that I haven't read the book, partly because I doubt there's anything
substantially new in it that hasn't already been refuted by others.
And I have good reason to think this.
When I debated with DEW supporter
"Emmanuel Goldstein" (whose real name is Thomas
Potter) on Amazon, he listed off 41 points that supposedly show
that the Towers were "dustified." He's obviously read her book (given
that he defends it so passionately; and if he hasn't, then who's he to
criticize others for not reading it?), and supposedly based his arguments
off of information from said book. And I was able to immediately respond to
every single one of these points because I had heard them all before.
I saw nothing new in any of his arguments, and had an answer ready to go for
each of them. So there are really only two possibilities: either there's
nothing new in Judy Wood's book, or there's some ground breaking evidence presented
in the book that DEW supporters don't feel like sharing with the rest of us.
Either way, I still see no great incentive to buy her book. I may someday if I
feel like wasting a chunk of my cash (her book currently sells anywhere from 45
to 60 dollars, and there's no preview for it on Amazon). Below I've reproduced
my refutations of Mr.
"Goldstein's" arguments, which I hope will help others in dealing
with this absurd disinformation.
"1 The Twin Towers were
destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed
'collapse.'"
Agreed. But this does not automatically mean that DEWs were used. And Dr. Wood's own calculations on the collapse rates of the Towers have been shown to be ludicrous.
Agreed. But this does not automatically mean that DEWs were used. And Dr. Wood's own calculations on the collapse rates of the Towers have been shown to be ludicrous.
"In an attempt to analyze the collapse times of the WTC towers (what she calls the "billiard ball" analysis), the conservation of momentum and energy are flagrantly violated. She assumes that with each collision, all momentum in the problem is obliterated. Her underlying assumptions are left unstated and the reader is left to ponder this egregious violation of physical law." http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NISTRFCWoodRebuttalGBU.pdf
Better calculations of the collapse times of the Towers can be found here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
"2 They underwent mid-air pulverization (dustification) and were turned to dust before they hit the ground."
Specifically, the concrete and other non-metallic materials were pulverized. NONE of the steel from the Towers was "dustified." http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/
"3 The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers."
False. The bathtub was significantly damaged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O7LwySqtr4&t=41m14s
"4 The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any."
Quote:
“Another source of data that is
cited by proponents of the `missing debris' hypothesis relates to the
non-catastrophic damage to the Bathtub, the ground zero region which was
encircled by subterranean walls to hold back water from the Hudson River.
No credible analysis or quantitative measurements have been offered by the proponents of the `missing' debris hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been catastrophically damaged.
The measured seismic activity explains why there was no catastrophic damage to the Bathtub:
Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5.
From a paper by James Gourley, the Bathtub survived much more substantial
seismic activity in the past:
Additional credible data is available that indicates NYC is located in an active seismic zone. A search of the Advanced National Seismic System catalog of earthquakes from 1970 to 2005, inside an area between 38N and 43N Latitude, and between 71W and 76W Longitude (an area that runs from just south of New Jersey north to the middle of New York state, and from just west of New Jersey east to Rhode Island) reveals that at least 21 earthquakes having a magnitude greater than 3.0 occurred in that area during those 34 years.” http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
"5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted."
See points 3 and 4.
"6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 3
"7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up."
Buildings have been demolished this way with explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9z08ml230
"8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise."
It was not "whisper quiet." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkwHUB7tYc&t=1m54s Are you suggesting that WTC7 was also destroyed with DEWs?
"9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."
This is absolutely false. Steel was everywhere. http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o24GaV0lV5I and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcM-B-pFuc
"10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."
Evidence for this? And why only the inside? How would a DEW do that?
"11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived."
Not conclusive proof of DEWs.
"12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one."
Yes, because porcelain survives well in building collapses.
"13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them."
They were blown in by the massive pressure waves of the collapses.
"14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage."
I think they were damaged by the STEEL from the Towers. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap6.html
"15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 13
"16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 15
"17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat."
See point 16.
"18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed."
See point 16.
"19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass."
Could have been caused by the collapse and the explosives.
"20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel."
There was no "instant rusting." See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 7
"21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating."
No evidence of heating? http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf
"22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies."
The dust clouds were reported to be hot: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/dustcloud.html
"23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis."
The columns could be bent in any direction in the collapse. And I thought the columns were supposed to be dustified, not bent.
"24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 10
"25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust."
This does not support DEWs. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Szamboti_The_Damage_to_WTC_Bldg._s_3_and_6__and_the_debate_between_the_controlled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf
"26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed."
Interesting and good points to raise concerning the lack of air defense on 9/11. But not evidence of DEWs.
"27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf
"28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings."
Perhaps, but this still is not proof of DEWs. The collapse of the Towers damaged several buildings hundreds of feet away.
"29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it."
See points 3 and 4.
"30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix."
The other WTC buildings were obviously closer to the Towers, so that makes sense.
"31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared."
Yes, it was crushed by the falling STEEL.
"32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume."
See point 15
"33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings."
Wrong. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
"34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud."
So you think WTC7 was demolished with DEWs? If the columns in the building were cut, the pile could fold and fit into the footprint. Which by the way is the point of demolitions with explosives.
"35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions."
Evidence for any of this? Explosions would be consistent with demolition with explosives.
"36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC."
Many of the trucks were on fire. Of course things in them would explode.
"37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage."
The collapse of two 110 story buildings can do that ya know.
"38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11."
How is this evidence of DEW? Also, see: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 6
"39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map."
Maybe it wasn't talked about on 9/11 because the worst terrorist attack in history was happening?
"40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails."
Not sure what that's supposed to be. Elaborate please.
"41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above."
None of which was caused by this effect or DEWs.
No credible analysis or quantitative measurements have been offered by the proponents of the `missing' debris hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been catastrophically damaged.
The measured seismic activity explains why there was no catastrophic damage to the Bathtub:
Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5.
From a paper by James Gourley, the Bathtub survived much more substantial
seismic activity in the past:
Additional credible data is available that indicates NYC is located in an active seismic zone. A search of the Advanced National Seismic System catalog of earthquakes from 1970 to 2005, inside an area between 38N and 43N Latitude, and between 71W and 76W Longitude (an area that runs from just south of New Jersey north to the middle of New York state, and from just west of New Jersey east to Rhode Island) reveals that at least 21 earthquakes having a magnitude greater than 3.0 occurred in that area during those 34 years.” http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
"5 The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted."
See points 3 and 4.
"6 The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 3
"7 The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up."
Buildings have been demolished this way with explosives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9z08ml230
"8 The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise."
It was not "whisper quiet." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkwHUB7tYc&t=1m54s Are you suggesting that WTC7 was also destroyed with DEWs?
"9 The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."
This is absolutely false. Steel was everywhere. http://citizenfor911truth.wordpress.com/the-wtc-was-not-destroyed-with-directed-energy-weapons/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o24GaV0lV5I and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcM-B-pFuc
"10 The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth."
Evidence for this? And why only the inside? How would a DEW do that?
"11 One file cabinet with folder dividers survived."
Not conclusive proof of DEWs.
"12 No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one."
Yes, because porcelain survives well in building collapses.
"13 Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them."
They were blown in by the massive pressure waves of the collapses.
"14 In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage."
I think they were damaged by the STEEL from the Towers. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap6.html
"15 Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 13
"16 Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 15
"17 Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat."
See point 16.
"18 Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed."
See point 16.
"19 The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass."
Could have been caused by the collapse and the explosives.
"20 Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel."
There was no "instant rusting." See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 7
"21 Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating."
No evidence of heating? http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dreger/GroundZeroHeat2008_07_10.pdf
"22 Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies."
The dust clouds were reported to be hot: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/dustcloud.html
"23 Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis."
The columns could be bent in any direction in the collapse. And I thought the columns were supposed to be dustified, not bent.
"24 Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf pg. 10
"25 Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust."
This does not support DEWs. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Szamboti_The_Damage_to_WTC_Bldg._s_3_and_6__and_the_debate_between_the_controlled_demolition_and_beam_weapon_theories.pdf
"26 All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed."
Interesting and good points to raise concerning the lack of air defense on 9/11. But not evidence of DEWs.
"27 Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers."
See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf
"28 The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings."
Perhaps, but this still is not proof of DEWs. The collapse of the Towers damaged several buildings hundreds of feet away.
"29 More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it."
See points 3 and 4.
"30 Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix."
The other WTC buildings were obviously closer to the Towers, so that makes sense.
"31 The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared."
Yes, it was crushed by the falling STEEL.
"32 For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume."
See point 15
"33 The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings."
Wrong. See: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf
"34 The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud."
So you think WTC7 was demolished with DEWs? If the columns in the building were cut, the pile could fold and fit into the footprint. Which by the way is the point of demolitions with explosives.
"35 Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions."
Evidence for any of this? Explosions would be consistent with demolition with explosives.
"36 Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC."
Many of the trucks were on fire. Of course things in them would explode.
"37 There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage."
The collapse of two 110 story buildings can do that ya know.
"38 Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11."
How is this evidence of DEW? Also, see: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf pg. 6
"39 Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map."
Maybe it wasn't talked about on 9/11 because the worst terrorist attack in history was happening?
"40 Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails."
Not sure what that's supposed to be. Elaborate please.
"41 Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above."
None of which was caused by this effect or DEWs.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
ಠ_à²
My face is in pain from all the face-palms. My teeth are cracking from grimacing. And that's just from the trailer. What will the actual movie do to me?
I expect us to still be making bad movies. Hell, with all the crap put out these days sometimes I worry that we've finally run out of ideas for good films. But I would at least have expected us to move past the point of making films in the same category of Reefer Madness. *Sigh* The only tiny silver lining in this that makes me feel a little better is that this film's existence means we must be doing something right. Oh, and these video responses (here and here). They make me feel better too. :)
I expect us to still be making bad movies. Hell, with all the crap put out these days sometimes I worry that we've finally run out of ideas for good films. But I would at least have expected us to move past the point of making films in the same category of Reefer Madness. *Sigh* The only tiny silver lining in this that makes me feel a little better is that this film's existence means we must be doing something right. Oh, and these video responses (here and here). They make me feel better too. :)
Friday, September 20, 2013
Uncritical vs. Unbiased Reporting: An Email to Joel Mathis
Below is an email I sent to Joel Mathis of phillymag.com on 9/12/2013, regarding his criticism of Paul Kurtz's coverage of the ReThink911 campaign.
_________________________________________________________________________
Dear Mr. Mathis,
My name is Adam
Taylor. I am a 9/11 activist and a contributing writer and researcher for
several 9/11 truth websites, including Debunking the Debunkers, AE911Truth,
and ScientificMethod911. Having read your recent Philly Post article,
I'm very disappointed to see that you have offered an unfair and misinformed
criticism of Paul Kurtz's coverage of
AE911Truth's ReThink911 campaign. It's obvious that,
contrary to what you claim of Mr. Kurtz, it is in fact you that
has provided an uncritical assessment of the issues surrounding the events of
September 11th. Allow me to enlighten you to a few of your errors that is quite
unbecoming of someone who claims to be a journalist.
For starters, your
entire criticism of Mr. Kurtz's article as failing to provide
"counterarguments" to AE911Truth's position is entirely unfounded.
True enough, the article does only discuss the group's position on the collapse
of the WTC buildings. But why is that such a bad thing? Is Mr. Kurtz required
to present every viewpoint on the collapse of these buildings? While Mr. Kurtz
provides no criticisms of AE911Truth's work, nothing in the article necessarily endorses their
position either. It could be that Mr. Kurtz agrees 100% with them. But nowhere
does he say that in his article. He does not state his own opinion, but merely
reports on the event in an unbiased manner, which is exactly what a
professional journalist should do. Perhaps you believe that the mere mention of
the group is uncritical endorsement, and that Mr. Kurtz should not have done
so. If this were the standard practice of all journalists, they would likely
have very little to comment on.
But ironically, your
article provides us with a perfect example of what uncritical journalism
actually looks like. You provide two examples of supposed "debunking"
of the truth movement's claims. Your first example is Popular Mechanics,
and it seems that along with Rachel Maddow you've
placed a disturbing blind faith in their analysis of the movement's arguments.
Popular Mechanics has long been responded to by many people within the 9/11
truth movement, including Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, and AE911Truth
founder Richard Gage. I
myself have written an extensive multi-part response to
Popular Mechanics' latest version of their book Debunking 9/11 Myths.
By your own standards, shouldn't you have mentioned these
"counterarguments" in order for your article to be considered an
"honest report"? And just how honest is this source of yours to begin
with?
It's unlikely that
Popular Mechanics has much to say about the group Architects & Engineers
for 9/11 Truth, given that they've largely ignored them. In their previously
mentioned Debunking 9/11 Myths book, there is not one mention of AE911Truth or
its founder Richard Gage. Now it's one thing to give no mention of this group,
but it's another thing to deny its existence completely. And that is
essentially what Popular Mechanics has done. In their book they actually claim
that "not one of the leading conspiracy
theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields."
Keep in mind that this book was published in 2011, and by this time AE911Truth
was comprised of around 1600 professional architects and engineers. Does
Popular Mechanics sound like it's presenting an honest assessment of the truth
movement? I provide a summary of other omissions and distortions in their book here.
Your second example, Rational Wiki, fairs
no better. While no critique of their entire 9/11 conspiracy page exists to my
knowledge, much of what they discuss has already been addressed by the movement
as well. Simply type in any subject they bring up into the search engine
at Debunking the Debunkers and you'll
find answers to their arguments. But the specific section of their page you
link to shows just how uncritical the writers of that site are. They fail to
note that NIST's WTC7 report has been exposed as extremely erroneous, and contains
a multitude of deceptions and misrepresentations.
Did you bother to critically analyze either of these sources? And if not, then
what justifies your criticism of Mr. Kurtz supposedly doing the same
thing?
As I said at
the beginning, it's very disappointing to see the position you've taken on
this issue. You criticize Paul Kurtz for giving the movement an
"unchallenged platform" (which, by the way, it's really not;
that's what the comments section is for), whilst all that he has done is
provide an unbiased coverage of the group's efforts to get a new investigation
into the collapse of the three WTC buildings. Rather than show that Mr.
Kurtz was wrong for giving them uncritical coverage, your article gives
off the impression that he was wrong for giving them any coverage at all. You
conclude your article by saying that:
It’s one thing to raise questions: That’s the job of journalists. When there are people who offer different, credible answers on those questions, it’s also the job of journalists to present those.
The media has for many
years presented the government's scientific assertions about the collapse of
the WTC. Now it's AE911Truth's turn. The group presents exactly the kind of
"different, credible answers [to] questions" that you talk about. And
it's no one else's fault except yours if you fail to see that. I recommend that
you issue a formal apology to Mr. Kurtz for your unfounded criticism of his
reporting and journalism methods. I hope you will take my comments into
consideration, and do exactly what AE911Truth's campaign is encouraging people
to do: re-think 9/11.
Sincerely,
-Adam Taylor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)