A Response to the Skeptic Counter-Arguments

Guest Contributor: Mark Farris

Published on December 22, 2011 (cross-posted from our group’s Meetup.com page)


The 9 pages of counter-arguments were very weak. [Admin edit: the 9 pages referred here were a synopsis of the two previous blog posts here and here that was provided at the 12/17 meetup in a consolidated form – Chris]

1 – The author(s) keep referring to thermite when Steven Jones has been discussing nano-thermite.

2 – In questioning Steven Jones position on thermite (?), the author(s) state , Sulfur, Iron, Potassium, Manganese, Florine, and Titanium were already on site as compounds inherent to the buildings and aircraft. My question is, are the authors suggesting these elements miraculously congealed to become thermite after the fact(?). If so, someone needs to see a psychiatrist.

3 – The author(s) wasted much paper and ink trying to plant seeds of doubt on the issue of thermite(?) but they never question why the NIST never bothered to conduct any tests for any explosives! The counter-arguments are trash.

4 – The demolition of the Hudsons bldg is in the counter-arguments. The Hudsons bldg was demolished 3 years before 9/11 and as far as I know nano-thermite did not exist at that time. We have no idea how long the perpetrators of 9/11 had to set up the crime scene. Given the fact George Bushes brother Marvin was on the board of directors of the security firm guarding the World Trade Center, I consider the point moot. Also here the issue of bomb sniffing dogs was raised however if the dogs were not trained to sniff out nano-thermite they would not seek it out. Right?

5 – The argument about the weight of the plane is used as if a solid 472,740 lb. object plowed into the bldgs. This raises many questions. Truth is the aircraft would have pulverized upon impact with much or most of the fuel ejecting out the other side. In fact, the govt. position is that the aircraft sheered so many of the support box beams, that is what started the chain reaction collapses of the towers. Problem is, the govt. position on the Pentagon crash states the exact opposite. The argument there is that the wings and tail section of the aircraft are thin and light which explains why the entire aircraft was sucked into an 18 ft. hole. Now we have to question where did the engines go at the Pentagon and why was a three foot titanium fan blade found but not the two 9 ft. blades from the two main engines? Aeronautical engineers have said the three foot blade did not match the auxiliary motor found on that particular aircraft. Also, where are the two holes that should have been punched thru the pentagon wall. Those engines weigh 6 tons apiece. Also, the freeway is higher than the entry point on the Pentagon wall. It defies the laws of physics for an aircraft weighing at least 473 thousand pounds flying at 510 knots to be able to make those kinds of maneuvers with a pilot who could not fly a tiny single engine pipercub plane. Anyone who has actually looked at the evidence would have to know a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon. After all, why were the large wire spools still intact on the lawn in front of the entry point? Why won’t the govt. release any videos of the Pentagon crash? Bottom line is, the more evidence the govt. releases, the more contradictions they have to address. And again, aeronautical engineers know those commercial airliners could not fly at sea level at 510 knots without the wings coming off!

6 – In regards to foreknowledge, did you know the millions of dollars of payout from the put options on airline stocks were placed on computers from within the twin towers? And I guess one would have to ask where did the $800 million dollars worth of gold which was stored in the basement complex disappear to?

I realize I have styrayed a bit from the specific A&E position put forth but if your want to cure a disease, you have to look at all the symptoms. A&E will have to keep this point in mind if they are going to be more effective down the road. If anyone wants to carry this debate forward I am game but you have to have realistic arguments. All the counter-arguments are speculative trash. You have to at least be aware of the other sides arguments before you can attempt to debate an issue. 9/11 was an inside job.

Download Now – Debate On Alternate Theories to 9/11 Truth

This is an audio recording of the Q & A portion of the 12/17 meet-up which featured a presentation from Stanley A. Beattie P.E., a representative of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  Stanley provided his arguments and reasoning as to why the AE911Truth members believe that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by explosive demolition to an audience consisting of both those who accept these claims and those who are skeptical of these claims.

Interview: Tony Sobrado on Conspiracy Theorists

In preparation for our meetup on December 17th, that will feature a presentation by a representative of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth‘, I spoke with social scientist and research analyst, Tony Sobrado, about some of the inconsistencies that can be found in conspiracy theories, as well as the various ideological and sociological characteristics that are often associated with conspiracy theorists .  Tony also provides some advice for skeptics on ways to critically examine a conspiracy theorist’s arguments.

Tony Sobrado is the author of the forthcoming book, Who rules the world? An analysis of Conspiracy Theory which addresses the phenomena of Conspiracy Theory from the perspective of the social sciences. You can find him on twitter @TonySobrado and his website: http://tonysobrado.com.  And you can find an archive of articles that he’s written for The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-sobrado.

Interview: Ben Radford on 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

In preparation for our meetup on December 17th, that will feature a presentation by a representative of ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth‘, I spoke with skeptic and author-investigator, Ben Radford, about the ways in which 9/11 conspiracy theorists make claims and utilize evidence.  Ben also provided some advice for skeptics on ways to critically examine a conspiracy theorist’s arguments.

Ben Radford is the deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer, investigative author, and co-host of the podcast, MonsterTalk. You can find out more about Ben by visiting his website at benjaminradford.com.

The Skepticism of “Gasland” (and Fracking)

On Thursday November 17, 2011, there will be a viewing and discussion of the Oscar-nominated documentary film, Gasland.  The event runs from 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Downtown Library: Multi-Purpose Room.

The documentary film explores the topic of drilling for natural gas, and in particular the process known as “Hydraulic Fracturing” (also known as Fracking).  This process involves spraying high pressurized water at rock sediment to create fractures in which natural gas is then released from the rocks, and collected.  This process is controversial because critics argue that natural gas extracted in this way can contaminate drinking water, as well as cause other environmental problems.

There are some skeptics of these arguments.

Continue reading