Why 10 years (at least for me) is enough

***UPDATE 8/4/2019***

Recently I was interviewed by conspiracy debunker Mick West on his show Tales from the Rabbit Hole, to discuss my years of activism and eventual retirement from the Truth Movement. Video of the interview has now been posted. Thank you to Mick West for doing the interview and having me on.

(One correction: Around the 39 minute mark I discuss the collapse of Building 7 and mention that it fell in free fall for a hundred stories. I misspoke, and meant to say 100 feet.)


https://www.tftrh.com/2019/08/04/episode-16-adam-taylor-retired-9-11-truth-activist/

Original post

Today marks the 16 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. But I've recently had my own personal anniversary this past August. It has been officially 10 years since I first began my research into the events of 9/11/2001. I've told parts of this story elsewhere, but I need to tell it again here.

I was only 10 years old when 9/11 happened. I knew next to nothing about politics, and I certainly had no idea that the kind of evil perpetrated that day could be a reality. Fear was everywhere that day, and would be in the years that followed. For the most part, I had no doubt that Islamic extremists were the sole cause of what happened, and as much as I was dismayed at the ensuing wars that resulted, I knew a truly evil crime had been committed, someone had to be punished, and justice needed to be served. But throughout the years, I also heard from time to time talk about a "conspiracy" behind 9/11: that the attacks were in fact caused by people within the US government, staging a so-called false-flag attack to blame on Muslims as a pretext to go to war. 

I didn't give this much thought whenever I'd hear this, because I figured there was no way that could happen. Sure, the government might know more about the attacks than what they were telling the public, but would they really do that? And how could they have done it? But my knowledge of such conspiracy theories at the time was extremely limited, and I didn't feel the need to take them seriously.

Then on August 20th, 2007, I had (as cliched as it sounds) a life changing experience. I was randomly flipping through the channels on TV, when I came across a documentary on the History Channel titled "9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?" The aim of the film was obviously to debunk the conspiracy theories people had proposed over the years. And it peaked my interest. After all, I had only superficial knowledge about these ideas up to that point, and I had never really taken the time to listen to them. So I figured, why not? Lets listen to what these people were actually saying. And what the documentary showed really surprised me.

For starters, I was surprised at how many people were convinced by these ideas. I had no idea that there was a real "movement" behind this conspiracy theory, and the images of people protesting and marching for what they believed really showed me just had far these ideas had spread. I was surprised at how much time and effort was being spent by these people to promote these ideas. Things like banners, entire websites and full-length films were produced, all with the intention of promoting the idea that the official story of 9/11 was a lie. But perhaps what I was most surprised at was just how many anomalies these researchers had found in regards to the attacks. Regardless of what you think of the documentary, it was an excellent summary of all the different problems people had found with the official narrative, most of which I had never heard. And, I was also surprised at how the answers debunkers had to these theories were unsatisfactory. 

For example, the question of the Twin Towers' collapse rates was brought up, how they seemed to collapse far to quickly due to just gravity alone. This suggested that the Towers were actually destroyed by controlled demolition with explosives. The film's answer to this? That controlled demolitions generally start from the bottom of a building, not the top, so they could not be demolitions. Setting aside the fact that not all demolitions start at the bottom, my reaction to this answer was essentially "Wait, what? That doesn't explain how they collapsed so quickly. If anything, the fact that the collapse started at the top instead of the bottom makes the problem worse, not better." Another example was their discussion of how the hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour wasn't experienced enough to fly the plane into the Pentagon as he supposedly did. The film's answer? That Hanjour had a pilot's licence and had trained in simulators, so he probably could have done it. This was despite the fact (and brought up in the film) that even experienced pilots said they couldn't have done what Hanjour supposedly did. 

All of this was so strange to me. I had no bias on this issue one way of the other, but I couldn't help shake this feeling that something was really wrong here. Why, if the official narrative was true, did the debunkers' answers seem so insufficient? I later learned how much more the film had gotten wrong, and what a deceptive hit-piece it really was.

After the film was over, I was unsure what to think. I wasn't convinced 9/11 was an inside job, but I was convinced that these ideas were worth looking into. So the next question for me was, what do I do now? After all, I was completely new to all this. How was I going to go about researching this? What do I start with? After watching the film, the only thing I had to go off of was another documentary, discussed at length by the filmmakers: Loose Change. So once I had access to a computer, I sat down one afternoon and watched the 2nd Edition (the 3rd Edition hadn't been released yet). It was an extremely eye-opening film, to say the least. Much of what it brought up wasn't even discussed by the History Channel piece, and even subjects that were discussed were explained in much more detail than what the History Channel showed. I was shown evidence I hadn't seen before, and it compelled me to want to keep researching this.

(The irony, of course, is that today I would never recommend anyone watch Loose Change 2nd Edition. Because of everything I've learned over the years, I've found the film contains far too many errors and dubious claims for me to possibly consider recommending it to people. The 3rd and 4th editions are far superior, and I've recommended them frequently. Still, I appreciate that the film gave me further insight into all the different theories about 9/11 out there, and helped me to distinguish between good evidence and bad evidence).

From there, I found several useful 9/11 websites, including Jim Hoffman's encyclopedic 911research site, and sites such as 911truth and 911blogger. As I looked through the evidence over the next year, I became more and more convinced that the official narrative was wrong, and that the attacks were very likely carried out by insiders within the US government. But I was also interested in what the debunkers had to say as well. To be sure, they raised good points from time to time, but overall I did not find their arguments convincing.

Then in 2009, I had yet another life-changing moment, partly due again to Loose Change. It was announced that the Loose Change crew would be releasing a fourth edition of the film: Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup. Needless to say, I was very excited about this, and wanted to be kept up-to-date on the progress of the film. So I began to frequent the Loose Change website, and in particular its forum (though I never signed up as a poster). And one day while scrolling through a thread, I found someone had posted a link to a website I had never heard of: 911debunkers.blogspot.com. And I found it was a comprehensive site devoted to answering the claims of 9/11 debunkers, run by activist John-Michael Talboo. I eventually contacted him, just to tell him how impressed I was with the site, and told him and the other contributors to keep up the good work. I myself had produced a series of videos aimed at debunking the debunkers, and John-Michael offered to post them at his site. Eventually, he asked if I would like to become a contributor, and while I had never written for a website, I happily accepted the offer.

The next several years was the prime of my 911 research, answering debunker claims while doing further research into the attacks. I was so convinced that we would eventually have a new investigation, that we would bring the real perpetrators to justice, and justice would be served for 9/11 victims and their family members.

With all of that said, I have to make it clear from the get-go what this post is not. This is not me selling out, declaring that I now believe the official story. Let me make this clear: I still believe we have not been told the full truth about 9/11. I still fully support a new investigation into the attacks. And yes, I still believe there is substantial evidence suggesting that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with controlled demolition. I've laid out my reasons for thinking so in my response to Chris Mohr, to date still my most comprehensive presentation of the evidence. As I said when I first posted it, there are some things in it that I would tweak, but for the most part I still stand by it. The events of 9/11 should be re- investigated, and the includes the destruction of those buildings.

But now to what this post is. I guess you could call it my official statement of retirement from the Truth Movement. It's been something I've planned to do for a long time now, and today of all days seems like the right time to do it. For whatever successes the movement has had, it seems as though its failures have overtaken them, hence why we still have yet to get a new investigation. From 2008 to 2011, the movement still had energy to it, still that hope of accomplishing our goal of getting an investigation. But for the last several years, I've felt next to no energy from it, no hope, and no motivation. Ironically, I felt the first signs of this at another 10-year anniversary; the 10-year anniversary  of 9/11.

That one was especially important for me, because it was the first time I was ever in New York for 9/11. Me, John-Michael and his wife had gone out to join our fellow truthers to

Me in New York, 9/11/2011.

demonstrate, and it was an incredible experience. Finally, after years of blogging and making videos about the attacks, relegating myself to presenting the evidence digitally from my computer, I was finally there. I was among like-minded activists for the first time, physically joining them in their call for a new investigation. Yet despite the energetic optimism I felt, I couldn't help but see the signs that the movement was on its last legs.

For starters, the turn-out was vastly smaller than what I had seen before. It's been said that the Truth Movement's strength peaked in 2006, and indeed that may very well be true. The 2006 rally literally had thousands of truthers in attendance. In 2011, I'd estimate maybe only a couple hundred (if that). Moreover, I listened to what they were saying there, and so much of it was the poor and unsubstantiated ideas reminiscent of Loose Change 2nd edition. It was now 10 years after the attacks, and if there was ever a time to stop discussing the bad evidence and just focus on the good, it was now. A specific highlight for me was that as I was talking with a critic about the evidence for controlled demolition, I mentioned that I did not believe in no-planer theories, and stated that I firmly believed a plane did strike the Pentagon. A truther nearby heard me, and actually interrupted me to say "wait, what do you mean a plane hit the building?" Sigh.

It was the first warning sign I'd seen, but it was a big one. I can't say for sure that the movement peaked in 2006, but one thing was for sure: it peaked for me in 2011.

After the 10-year anniversary came and went, the next several years showed me more signs that the movement was coming to a close. Despite the fact that we had finally gotten numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals, we didn't seem to be getting any closer to our goal. Even the paper from Steven Jones that showed actual evidence of explosives in the debris wasn't enough to do it, and I thought if any paper could do it, it'd be that one. But not only did it not pave the way for a new investigation, a counter-study had been published by James Millette, casting doubt on the validity of it all. Sure enough, responses were posted, and there was promise of a third study of the WTC dust meant to finally answer the question of whether or not we had actual evidence of explosives being used. But this study, undertaken by Mark Basile, has now taken longer than Steven Jones' and James Millette's studies combined. The last thing I've seen posted about it isn't promising, and I honestly doubt any such study is going to be completed. If it does get done, great. But until I see results, I see no reason to get my hopes up.

I've also been extremely dismayed by the activities of AE911Truth. As much as I have appreciated their work, I've seen no indication that they are any closer to getting us a new investigation. Specifically, I have been incredibly frustrated at the lack of work from them published in peer-reviewed journals. The Journal of 911 Studies is all well and good, but the way to get the message out there to the scientific community is to get your beliefs and assertions in a venue that can be reviewed by other outside experts. Granted, I know there has been concern that journals won't publish such material, and indeed there have been several cases where journals have rejected work from the movement for the strangest reasons (example, example, example). So I understand that getting these ideas in established journals wouldn't be easy. But it's not impossible, as shown by other engineers and scientists in the movement. Think about it. AE911Truth currently has nearly 3000 qualified experts signed on to their petition demanding a new investigation. If just, say, 100 of them each published a paper in engineering journals, don't you think that at least a few of them would get published? (The closest thing I've seen is the study currently underway from the University of Alaska Fairbanks.) While I doubt I'm qualified to do so, the fact is that if I were running AE911Truth, I'd be doing things differently. But I'm just one guy. I'm not going to convince them to do things differently, and they have an audience I don't have.  Again, if they do have further success, great. But with as many experts as they have now, and how much time has passed, I'm done waiting around.

Furthermore, as with the truthers I interacted with in New York, there are still far too many spreading outright falsehoods and disinformation. I've been utterly disgusted by the activities of these people, including (just to name a few): Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Craig Ranke, Craig McKee, and others. I have no sympathy for these people, and as far as I'm concerned, they did more harm to the Truth Movement than any debunker ever could.

That gets me to the debunkers. Or, more specifically, one debunker; Ryan Mackey. A few years ago I read his paper analyzing the Truth Movement, and while there's plenty in it I would disagree with, I found several of his points worth considering. One of those being a simple suggestion he had for truthers:

To those still interested in the Truth Movement, I make only one suggestion: Take a break. Give yourself a full month away from the Truth Movement. Don’t argue on-line, don’t watch videos. For that matter, don’t read responses from skeptics, either. I don’t want you to be concerned about being “brainwashed” by debunkers – stay away from them as well. After this time has passed, feel free to get involved again and see if your perspective has changed. However, if you cannot set it aside for a month, and I do mean to set it aside completely, this should be a warning sign to you. After all, September 11th was over ten years ago. Nothing bad will happen if you leave it alone for a month. Give it a try. (p. 63) 

Again, there's plenty I think Mackey's gotten wrong. But in this case, I thought he had something here. So I decided to take his advice. Or rather, I should say I've been taking his advice. For the past couple of years, I've had periods where I've literally gone months without interacting with any 9/11-related material. And I honestly didn't feel bad about it. Sure, I've gone back to looking into from time to time, but I never felt as though I were missing anything, that anything had been lost from taking a break. It was actually pretty easy. And I think the reason for that is largely due to the state I've seen the movement currently in. With the way things are going, I can't see how we're going to accomplish our goals. I can't say it any plainer or any clearer: We are not going to get a new investigation. I know that's a hard pill for many of my fellow truthers to swallow, but I can't see any way around it.

And so, with this post I announce my official departure from the movement. This means I will not be taking part in any more Truth Movement activities. No more videos. No more blog posts. No more 9/11 activism of any kind. For me, 10 years is enough.

It also means I will be discontinuing my personal blog. I will still leave it up and mostly intact, but I will not be writing there any more. Seriously, I'm done.

But in saying that, I would like to also say that much of my time in the movement was extremely rewarding. I met several amazing people, whose passion to find the truth about that terrible day was inspiring to the extreme. As such, there are many within this movement I want to thank and show my sincerest gratitude.

First, I would like to thank AE911Truth. Despite my frustrations with them, I'm extremely grateful to them for publishing several of my articles at their website, and for the invaluable advice and assistance I received from several of their members.

I would also like to thank Jeff Hill, Bernie Suarez and Andy Steele, all who had me on their radio programs, and allowed me to speak to a wider audience than I would have been able to otherwise.

Thank you to the moderators at scientificmethod911.org for publishing an article of mine. That I could contribute a scientific understanding of 9/11 at your site was extremely appreciative.

Thank you to the blog contributors at 911debunkers. I learned an enormous amount from all of you, and your insight into the attacks was more helpful than you'll ever know.

I would also like to thank the debunkers. Yes, that's right. Granted, this doesn't apply to all of them. Over the years, several of them were just complete dicks to me, and I honestly couldn't care less about them. But several of them provided civil, constructive criticisms that I always tried to take into account. Many of their arguments bettered me and my understanding of the attacks, and I'm grateful for that. And of course of all of them, I'm most grateful to Chris Mohr, whose video series gave me the chance to present a full, comprehensive demon-stration of the evidence. So to the debunkers, please know that I never considered you "enemies" of the Truth Movement. For me, the only enemies in this situation are those who carried out the attacks, whoever they may be.

Last but not least, my sincerest gratitude goes to John-Michael Talboo, one of my best friends, and the person who allowed me to do more in the movement that I ever thought I could. Allowing me to contribute to your site gave me the chance to be a part of something amazing, something that was making a real difference in the world. Not everyone would have given me that kind of chance, and there are no words to describe how grateful I am for that. Thank you brother.

It does sadden me immensely to know we won't get a new investigation. For me, none of this was about fame or making a name for myself, or believing the worst of the government just because I could. I started this because of my sympathy for the 9/11 victims' family members, many of whom I know are still hurting and want justice to be served for their loved ones. That this won't happen is my deepest regret. In many ways researching 9/11 took a heavy toll on me. I've watched countless videos of the destruction of that day, seen thousands of lives wiped out in an instant, and listened to and read the accounts of the people most seriously affected by the attacks. Even after all this time, it's never gotten any easier. 

So to my fellow truthers, all I have left to say is that, we gave it a good try, but I think it's time to call it a day. Move on to other causes. Work hard to better this country, and for that matter, the world. Let's work to prevent the next 9/11s from happening. Even though the movement is over, its creed should still go strong: ASK QUESTIONS. DEMAND ANSWERS.

Craig McKee Still Lying about the Pentagon

Sigh. It seems that Craig McKee just can't get past this little problem he has about lying over and over again about what happened at the Pentagon. Please believe me when I say I'm as sick of this as anyone can get, but lying about the events of 9/11 is something I can't let go unchecked (hell, that's why I joined the Truth Movement in the first place). Recently I had the chance to visit ol' Craig on Facebook in a discussion thread, where topics about the Pentagon got brought up. Craig of course piped in to give his two cents, insisting for the umteen-thousandth time the no plane hit the building. And lookie what he just happened to post today.

In case you were wondering, the article he links to is this one, one that he wrote, and who's claims I've rebutted not once, but twice now. A rebuttal that Craig is well aware of. There's just no other conclusion I can reach at this point; Craig McKee is a provable liar who has no problem repeating false claims. Need more proof? After calling him out on this, Craig responded with this:

That middle section bears repeating: "You claim that the white object on the right of one of the frames is smoke, not the tip of the plane. But I don't talk about that in my article, so why do you keep claiming that I do?" From the very article Craig wrote and continues to cite:

In the image, we see what appears to be the dark tail of a plane sticking up, but most of what would be the plane is blocked from view by a concrete barrier at the entrance to the parking area, just a few feet from the camera. The alleged shape of the plane is followed by a white trail, generally believed to be smoke from the plane. The following frame shows a large fireball and black smoke billowing from the facade of the building; we don’t actually see any impact at all.... Frame 23 in the film’s comparative analysis is clearly and irreconcilably different. In the second video sequence, with the concrete barrier no longer blocking the view of the alleged plane, we now see that the shape that appeared to be the plane’s tail is simply gone, and now the white “smoke” trail is what appears to be the plane just coming into frame. In fact, the analysis shows that the white blur in the second video is actually present in the first one, but it appears a whole section has been added to it. I know this is not easy to picture, so I strongly recommend that you watch this section of Mazzucco’s film – the section on the Pentagon surveillance videos starts at the 17-minute mark of DVD 2.

Ok, now take your hands off you face and come to your own conclusions about what we're to make of this. IMO, lying. I can't see any other way to describe it. But Craig has the chance to prove me wrong. After pointing these things out to Craig AGAIN, I posed three questions to him that he can answer and explain himself. When (or if) he responds, I'll post his answers and see if they're satisfactory. Until then, ball's in your court Craig.

1. Do you or do you not agree with the film's characterization of how the footage was supposedly doctored? (As your articles keep implying you do support its point.) 

2. If you do not agree with the film's characterization, are you going to amend your articles with a disclaimer that the film is wrong on the point it is making?  

3. If you think the footage has been altered in a different way than how the film describes, explain exactly what you think has been altered. You say I'm misrepresenting you, but all you do is reference the film when claiming the footage has been altered. What else am I supposed to think?

Craig McKee: Liar for 9/11 Truth

One thing I'd hope we'd be done with at this point in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the bickering over what really happened at the Pentagon. For me, the evidence is clear that a plane really did hit the building, and that it was Flight 77. But some people just won't let this topic die, and insist the ludicrous idea that no plane hit. One of those people is Craig McKee, a "researcher" in the movement who recently posted another long rambling complaint over why people think he's full of shit. Like most Pentagon no-planers (or just no-planers in general), Craig is fond of pretending that anyone who disagrees with him is out to get him and push some sort of agenda. Of some of these people he writes:

The team of researchers I mentioned – which includes Chandler, Jenkins, Frank Legge, John Wyndham, Jonathan Cole, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, and others – keeps repackaging the same discredited ideas about the Pentagon into one “scholarly paper” after another. They repeat frequently how they are using “the scientific method” while those who disagree are suffering from “confirmation bias” (which means favoring information that confirms existing beliefs).

Personally, I suspect folks like Hoffman, Legge, Cole, Chandler, etc. are probably just getting bored with this issue at this point. So am I. Craig goes over what fantastic evidence he has that no plane hit the Pentagon, but has he done anything with this evidence? That is, is he ever going to try and use this "evidence" to help get us a new investigation, or just post his ramblings on his blog and and pretend like he's beaten everyone else in a debate? I'm not holding my breath. 

Craig brings up ten questions that MUST be answered to show a plane hit the building. I'll put aside the fact that these questions have doubtlessly been answered before, but let's be nice and give it another go.

• Why would more than a dozen highly credible witnesses describe a virtually identical north of Citgo flight path unless this is what they saw?

I don't know, why would eyewitnesses say the Titanic split in two as it sank, but others say it sank in one piece? Why would thousands of people say they saw the sun zig-zag throughout the sky, when no one else in the world saw that? Could it possibly be because eyewitness evidence is known to be unreliable? Craig wants to put so much emphasis on the type of evidence that is literally the leading cause of most wrongful convictions. Besides, other eyewitnesses contradict these dozen or so witnesses, and the vast majority of them--even the ones cited by Craig--say they saw the plane hit the building.

• Since we know the wings did not penetrate, why weren’t they lying on the lawn? Same for the tail section and horizontal stabilizers.

I would honestly like any Pentagon no-planer to explain to me what airplane wings should look like after they've hit a reinforced masonry building at over 500 mph. How big do you think the pieces should be? Care to calculate how much force will be applied to the wings and work out what sort of state they'd be in afterwards? Please, draw it out for me if you need to. I'm fine accepting the idea that maybe, just maybe aluminum wings are not going to stand up very well to a building like the Pentagon at over 500 mph.

• How could the plane have entered through a hole much smaller than required without leaving large pieces of wreckage outside?

It didn't enter a hole "much smaller than required." Perhaps you missed the fact that there was a plane-shaped hole in the wall after the plane hit.

As for this "no large pieces" claim, please buy a decent pair of glasses Mr. McKee, and then look at this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

• Why was there no significant damage to the wall or even to windows that would have been hit by the tail and stabilizers?

Guess you might have missed this too.

Seriously Craig, glasses aren't that expensive these days. Oh, and if you think that's not enough damage, maybe remember the Pentagon was built to be a wee bit stronger than a normal building.

• How could the fuselage penetrate 310 feet into the building if the wings and tail section were turned to confetti on impact?

Because there's more fuselage than wing mass and tail mass. Yes, the front of the fuselage may not be able to do much, but there's tons more plane behind it coming in. And the Pentagon had quite a bit of open space, so once it got through the front wall there wasn't much left to stop it.

• How could the tiny amount of unidentified debris around the helipad possibly represent thousands of pounds of aircraft wreckage?

Who said it was "thousands of pounds" of debris outside? Again, pretty sure much of the larger, heavier debris found its way inside the building. That's what we should expect to happen. Small debris outside, large debris inside. Repeat that and maybe it will sink in eventually.

• What happened to the virtually indestructible engine cores, and why didn’t they create two exit holes?

You know Craig, Google is a thing that exists. Here, let me show you. 

• Given that the plane would have completely lost structural integrity halfway to the rounded C ring hole, what can account for the hole?

Gee, couldn't possibly be all that plane debris right in front of the hole, could it?

The hole might look odd at first, but it's consistent with damage from a plane strike.

• Why were all synchronized frames from the two camera views identical except for the single frame that is supposed to show a plane?
• Why would the government fake video of the crash if an actual crash took place?

I'm including these last two together for a reason. You might have wondered why I titled this post calling Craig a liar. Well, his last bit of "evidence", like all the rest, is wrong, but the fact is that he knows it's wrong. And he knows it's wrong because I pointed out to him that it's wrong. The point about the two video frames being out of sync is in reference to this point Craig made earlier in his post:

In September 11: The New Pearl Harbor we see video frames from two Pentagon cameras that were synchronized using a “multiplexer” system. About 100 frames were common to both sets and matched each other perfectly as confirmed by comparing the shape of the smoke cloud. http://luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167 All except one. Just one of these 100 frames does not match, and that is “frame 23,” the very one that allegedly shows a 757 crossing the Pentagon lawn. There is no doubt that frame 23 was doctored either in one set of frames or both.

I wrote about this before, but apparently I have to go over this again. What is claimed in the film is that the two frames featured below are out of sync and that one camera shows the whole plane and the other shows only "the tip of the plane."

First camera image.

Second camera image. 

Note the film claims that where the arrow

 is pointing is "the tip of the plane."

What the film says is the tip of the plane is actually the leading edge of the smoke trail left by one of the plane's engines.

The fact that this video shows a plane is all the more clear when higher resolution images are used. Of course, some will probably say this is "enhanced" or "manipulated footage" (as I was accused of using by some of Mr. McKee's ilk). However, a recent study by David Chandler and Nathan Flach uses video footage from the original sources, and they are also of high quality and show the plane.

Now I pointed this out in my previously mentioned post, and a second time to Craig over Facebook. How did he respond?

That's right, with more denial. The frames are clearly not out of sync, and the film is wrong to call that the tip of the plane. To my knowledge, Craig has never acknowledged this. And I'm willing to bet he never will. Craig spends some time talking about confirmation bias, but if there ever was someone to have it, it's him. He basically gives the whole game away when he answers the question "Can’t it be an inside job even if we support an impact?" by saying this:

Yes, but when we discard some of the most powerful evidence we have, the case against the official story is much weaker.

A translation for those who might not have gotten it: Yes, we might be wrong about this, but it's more important for us to use this to make our case, rather than being factually accurate.

The ends justify the means. This tells me Craig really doesn't care if this is factually correct or not. He just wants to prove 9/11 was an inside job, and since this would really convince people, he's just gonna run with it. This is standard religious apologetic logic, not objective research. I am convinced more and more that Craig is just willing to lie if he thinks that will get us a new investigation. So Craig, I've now told you not once, not twice, but THREE times the film is wrong about this. Are you ever going to admit this? You've "responded" twice, and I'm giving you one more shot. But strike three and you're out pal. What's it gonna be? Oh, and don't bother trying to edit your post to save face, because as we all know, the internet never forgets. 

Continue to peddle this disinfo, and I'm forced to conclude that you are simply a pathological liar. But then, your post shows you're apparently a fan of Erich von Däniken, another pathological liar. Like teacher like student, eh?

Myles Power's Review of "Where Did the Towers Go?": Not Fantastic, but OK

I feel no shame in admitting that I haven't read Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go?. Nor do I feel shame in admitting that I'm likely never going to read it. I've said as much before. I made it crystal clear to her followers that if there's some new ground-breaking information in her book that proves DEWs were used to "dustify" the Towers, then maybe I'd take a look. But since her book came out they've been trotting out the same claims we've heard for years, which are all easily refutable. 

Still, I've always felt it would be useful to have a comprehensive critique of the book that I can point people towards when they mention it to me. And last year it seemed like maybe my wish would be granted by none other than my 9/11 interlocutor Myles Power. As some of you know, Myles Power is the chemist and science blogger who made a series of debunking videos on 9/11 a few years ago, to which I wrote my own rebuttals in response. Last year he turned his attention to Judy Wood's book, after repeatedly being pestered by her followers, telling him to read it. So lo and behold, he bought it, and made the decision to actually sit down and read the thing, FSM help him.

Before really getting into what I want to talk about, I should make it clear from the start that, despite our disagreements on this particular issue, I have no personal grudge towards Myles at all. He seems like a nice enough fellow, and I'm sure that were we to meet socially, we'd get along just fine. And I admit that I've enjoyed quite a few of his science videos (e.g. this and this are two of my favorites).

Furthermore, he's done an fantastic job at debunking a whole host of genuine pseudo-science and crazy drivel. This much should be obvious from some the reactions he's received to his debunking, such as being DMCAed by AIDs deniers and anti-vaxers, and thrown out of psychic readings by the actual psychic. In my book, anyone who can annoy charlatans like these to that extant must be doing something right. 

That being said, there's a few things I felt were in need of critical assessment in regards to his review of Judy Wood's book. You can see everything he's said or written about the book by following this link. From the start, it's obvious this isn't the comprehensive, point-by-point refutation that I was hoping for, but that's sort of understandable when you consider what exactly he's working with here. His reviews demonstrate that, despite its size, the book contains an enormous amount of padding, filled with large pictures and irrelevant material. He describes it as basically an "adult picture book," and from what I've seen so far that seems like an accurate assessment. There probably just isn't as much to go on as the book's size suggests, so I shouldn't be that surprised that his critiques are fairly short. That's probably all it takes to debunk her anyway.

As it turns out, there actually is some material in the book I hadn't heard previously, as Myles' review demonstrates. Unfortunately for the DEWers, it's some of the most pathetic (and frankly cringe-worthy) "evidence" I've ever heard. Basically, Dr. Wood argues that images of people falling out of the Towers and appearing to shed their clothing is evidence of a DEW being used at the WTC. No, that doesn't make any sense, and Myles does a great job explaining why. She also repeats an often heard claim by those who haven't ade-quately studied the Towers' collapses, that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed in 11 and 9 seconds, respectively. This claim has been debunked by people both inside and outside the Truth Movement repeatedly, so it really needs no further rebuttal. (For a more accurate look at the Towers' collapse times, see: Kenneth Kuttler, "Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1".)

Myles also does a decent job of explaining why Wood's claims about the Towers being "dustified" is total bollocks. Wood apparently presents this photo of Ground Zero to demonstrate the supposed lack of steel debris at the site. Myles counters by pointing out that Wood never spoke with a single first-responder or member of the clean-up crew. This is a very significant point I've been making for years: neither Dr. Wood nor her followers have, or ever will, talk with the hundreds of workers who spent months clearing out the tonnes of steel that was present at GZ. I do think Myles could have rebutted this claim a bit more thoroughly had he shown other photos of GZ, rather than just the one aerial shot presented by Wood. The photographic record indisputably shows large sections of steel everywhere at GZ, which should be all the rebuttal one needs to show the steel wasn't "dustified." By all means, review the photos yourself. (And if you want to see a massive picture book that is worth buying, I highly recommend Joel Meyerowitz's Aftermath. Anyone who can look through that book and still believe the Towers were turned to dust is deluded beyond any hope.)

The one part in his review I disagree with thus far also just happens to be the section of Dr. Wood's book he somewhat agrees with. This is Wood's attempt to debunk arguments for more conventional demolition theories involving explosives and/or thermite. Myles admittedly says that Dr. Wood's debunking of this idea is "not fantastic, but OK," but still maintains she's right about this overall. But she's not. And Myles ought to know she's wrong about what she says. Granted, he should know this just based on my review of his video series, but one claim he agrees with left me shocked and somewhat disappointed with him. Myles says:

Perhaps the most fascinating section in this chapter is Wood’s rebuttal to those who say that thermite was used to bring the towers down. In my opinion, this is one of the more popular theories and is based on the paper published by Bentham Open journals, who have been heavily criticised in the scientific community for claiming to be peer reviewed, but accepting and publishing a fake paper generated using SCIgen. The paper the conspiracy is based on is called ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 Word Trade Centre Catastrophe’ and claims that in the dust following the attacks, they were able to isolate and identify thermitic material that may have been used to bring the towers down. Wood, however, does not agree and points out the impracticality of using thermite and that the authors of the paper never found thermite in the first place. Instead, they found the ingredients of thermite which are very common – which Wood clumsily rebuts by saying that if we were to find “chocolate, sugar, and nano-wheat (flour) in the dust that would not prove that chocolate-chip cookies turned the buildings to dust”.

Several points to consider here. First, the claim that the ATM paper has been "heavily criticized" by the scientific community is not the same as saying the paper's findings have been rebutted. To date only one (non-peer reviewed) counter-study has been published, and that study has been found to contain a multitude of problems. As for this claim about the journal "accepting and publishing a fake paper," that is exactly what didn't happen. According to Bentham's director of publications, the paper was only accepted in order to determine the true identity of the author. The paper was never published. Even the author of the hoax paper acknowledged that:

From this one case, we cannot conclude that Bentham Science journals practice no peer review, only that it is inconsistently applied. Earlier this year, I reported on a case in which a nonsensical article submitted to another Bentham Science journal was rejected after going through peer review.

For anyone who thinks the ATM was not peer-reviewed, take Dr. Steve Jones' comments into consideration.

This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE. [Source]

Further, our paper was reviewed prior to publication by the Physics dept. chair at BYU -- and he approved it for publication. His peer-review was NOT under the auspices of Bentham. (This peer-review was done because two of the authors are from this dept. at BYU... and Dr. Farrer requested the review.) [Source]

But the claim that really left me shocked and disappointed was Myles' insistence that "they found the ingredients of thermite which are very common." He also says that "the data that was put forward... doesn't prove that thermite was found in the dust. Basically it looks for certain elements... but it doesn't necessarily mean that these [elements] are combined together to make a certain compound..." I'm at a loss to understand how Myles reaches this conclusion. From the paper itself (p. 15):

From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich grains and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.

Myles also presents this quote from Dr. Wood's book.

The ATM paper makes it clear that these elements were not merely found in the dust, but that they were chemically combined together. As a chemist, Myles should be able to recognize this fact. He may dispute exactly what compound these elements make up, but I don't see how he can claim they aren't combined chemically. Again, he should know better, and Dr. Wood definitely should too.

Another point Myles raises, which is apparently also a point made by Dr. Wood, is that bomb-sniffing dogs would have detected explosives in the WTC buildings. The problem with this argument is that bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to detect nanothermite or other formulations of thermite. Furthermore, as I stated in my review of the "9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide" (p. 112):

A bomb-sniffing dog expert and trainer was contacted and asked about what the dogs are trained to smell. He stated that LackLand AFB lists the explosives that the military trains their dogs on, so ultimately anyone with intelligence connections could get that list, and know how to get around it. He also stated that bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to detect every type of possible explosive, as there are countless possible formulations.

The expert in question stated, "There are hundreds of thousands of explosives, and quite honestly we do about sixteen."

Dr. Wood and Myles also raise the point about how "witnesses reported hearing explosions. But the sound of an explosion does not necessarily mean that a bomb was detonated. Everything that goes “boom” is not necessarily a bomb." Been there, done that. It's not just the sounds we rely on. We've got the physical effects and the chemical composition of explosives in evidence as well.

In conclusion, Myles' review of Judy Wood's book is decent, but not the slam-dunk refutation I would prefer it to be. In other words (Myles' words in fact), it's not fantastic, but it's OK. Despite the points I've disputed above, I still enjoy and appreciate Myles' review, and would definitely recommend it to people who consider the book to have any sort of credibility. What other sorts of insanity dwell within its pages? If Myles reviews more of the book, we may just find out. Stay tuned.

Why I No Longer Support Alex Jones

It depresses me to think I ever supported this man. I used to think he was one of our few voices of reason. A voice silenced by the mainstream for speaking the truth. And now all I see him as is what everyone else sees him as: a deranged lunatic that no one should take seriously. I know I'm late to realize this, but as they say, better late than never. Alex has clearly had a few screws loose for years, but the recent stuff I've seen of him has finished it for me. I've unsubscribed from his YouTube channel and his Facebook. I'm done. He seems to have all but abandoned the Truth Movement, only mentioning 9/11 truth when it's convenient for him. When it's not, he happily ignores it in order to appease whatever guests appear on his show. The most recent example being his interview with fellow lunatic and (FSM help us) presidential candidate Donald Trump. A 30-minute interview wherein Jones agreed with Trump about everything, including that "the Saudis quarterbacked 9/11." As much as I don't like it, debunker Ryan Mackey sums Alex well:

[I]f Alex Jones was not a driving force bringing the Truth Movement to the mainstream, it wasn’t for lack of trying. He authored a book and produced two videos dedicated to his 9/11 ideas before the end of 2002, and another 9/11-themed video in 2005, as well as several other video presentations where 9/11 was a prominent ingredient. After this, his focus faded, and over time 9/11 became less important to his broadcast and his own conspiracy views. It simply wasn’t his core interest or his best seller. Most famously, he declined to participate in the most influential Truth Movement video of them all, Loose Change – although years later, after the Truth Movement became more popular, he took a controlling interest as executive producer of the 2007 revision Loose Change: Final Cut. It would probably be more correct to state that Alex Jones benefitted from the Truth Movement than the other way around.

Again, I don't like it, but I agree.

Let's also consider his insanity in regards to his BS claims about Planned Parenthood. Or the hate-fueled, bigoted drivel he's spewed out (along with his personal Jesus Christ, Paul Joseph Watson) about feminism. Stupid, crazy, hateful. And now he is bold-faced lying about Bernie Sanders, one of the only honest politicians I've seen in my life. Like I said, I'm done. I simply cannot support this man anymore, and neither should you. Goodbye, and good riddance Mr. Jones.