Faruk Ucrut: Debunking Popular Technology.net

This page is a response to the "Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" page at Popular Technology.net and to Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog who thinks "it links to lots of terrific sources."

Debunking Penn and Teller's Bullshit! 9-11 episode

PharmaWhores: The Showtime Sting of Penn & Teller

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

The Sounds of Loud and Clear

They tested one steel beam that was just laying across a pit with a pool of jet fuel? It's interesting how they never mention that Underwriters Labs had created full scale models of the WTC floor sections, tested them in hotter and longer fires, and that they didn't collapse. Clearly the conditions were going to be different and have different results. Namely: the fact that their test was out in the open with plenty of oxygen fueling the fire while the Twin Towers clearly had oxygen starved fires; the fact that their beam wasn't attached to anything and therefore had far less support than in the WTC; and that they aren't clear how similar their beam was to the ones in the WTC. - Source: National Geographic Should Stick to Documentaries About Girls Who Cry Blood

Why the Towers Fell - An Exclusive Investigation into the Collapse of the World Trade Center (2002) by Garfield Kennedy and Larry Klein, directors

This video by NOVA presents FEMA's explanation for the total collapse of the Twin Towers. NOVA's companion website to the video is critiqued here. NOVA does not consider whether controlled demolition was involved. - Source

World Trade Center - Anatomy of the Collapse (2001) by Steve Spak Productions
This documentary uses computer graphics to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers. It blames a flaw in the design of the Twin Towers for their total collapse. A simulation of the initiation of a collapse explains that the floors held up the walls. It shows perimeter walls bowing out immediately following the severing of connections between the trusses under a floor and the walls. Like the NOVA special, this explanation is based on the truss failure theory, later abandoned by NIST. - Source

References Debunked:

"Skeptics" or Dupes? Skeptic Magazine Not So Skeptical on 9/11 Lies

Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies

"Popular Mechanics and the military should get their stories straight on NORAD! As it is, we have caught Popular Mechanics and the military lying about NORAD's true capabilities on 9/11." - Dean Jackson

The NORAD Papers--NORAD's Mission To Monitor and Control Territorial Airspace on 9/11

Scientific American's Dishonest AttackOn 911Research - a critique of Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories published in Scientific American

The Pentagon - The September 11th Attack

Official Pentagon Investigations - Sketchy Reports by Volunteer Investigators and Academics

BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Thermodynamics of 9/11

Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - added comments are in red

Reports Debunked:

Responses to NIST's FAQs

The Facts Speak For Themselves

"Here's a 'Debunking' of my article.

http://www.smoking-bun.com/?tag=jon-gold

Here's a short film I made about 'debunkers.'" - Source

The 9/11 Commission Cover up

FEMA's Investigation - The FEMA WTC Building Performance Study

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/wtc7-and-british-brainwashing.html

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/02/ultimate-proof-nist-is-lying-about-wtc7.html

References Debunked:

Keep Your Hats On: Keith Seffen's "Mathematical Model Of The WTC Collapse" Is Incoherent, Inappropriate, And Almost Meaningless

The BBC's The Third Tower

Reply to Protec's A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

WTC 7 - the Case for no Collapse - Debunking the WTC 7 Conspiracy Theory of NIST - and some Thoughts how WTC 7 was destroyed

Critique of Manuel Garcia's Dark Fire The Fall of WTC 7

"Conspiracy Theory Videos"

Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

Debunking the 59 Deceits: Deceits 50-59

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11

A detailed rebuttal to the film Screw Loose Change- Not Freakin' Again Edition.
Note: This critique only addresses the WTC, as many issues about the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the hijackers are geniuely misrepresented in Loose Change.

Hoax-Promoting Videos

In Plane Site
Loose Change (Editions 1,2)
9/11 Eyewitness
PentaCon

Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials.

Debates

News that the Democracy Now! radio show was scheduling a debate on 9/11/2006 between a spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and the creator of Loose Change Dylan Avery prompted the following letters

Democracy When? a timeline of Amy Goodman's not-so-good coverage which avoids 9/11 complicity and Peak Oil Wars

Debunking Mark Roberts

Excerpt from "Taming the Beast: A Short History of the AE911Truth Debates":

The next debate took place on June 18, 2008, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Mark Roberts (a.k.a 'Gravy” on the James Randi Educational Forum) on the TV access show “Hardfire” with host John Clifton, past chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Mark Roberts, a New York tour guide, said he has “no specific expertise” in 9-11 matters but became interested in 2006 when he heard some of the “conspiracy theories” and found them “suspect.”

Roberts could barely contain his hostility towards Gage, accusing him of lying several times and impugning his motives. The ill will Roberts brings to the discussion is evident in many of his online posts where he goes by the name of “Gravy.” One such post on a James Randi Educational Forum refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps,” which indicates that he doesn’t just disagree with his opposition; he despises them.

Towards the beginning of the debate Roberts said of Gage, “He's got a 542-slide presentation that he encourages everyone to see on his website.... I found 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies.” He did not elaborate. Roberts took the approach that NIST fully explained everything; that anomalies, such as witnesses hearing explosions, simply didn't happen or the witnesses were mistaken. He also said the evidence of foreknowledge that Building 7 would collapse was simply a matter of experts thinking the building might fall because it had been damaged.

Excerpt from "Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories" by Prof. Graeme MacQueen:

Mark Roberts, for example, has set forth a detailed collection of collapse warnings, many of which are drawn from the oral histories of the New York Fire Department, [2] and has tried to use these to support his hypothesis of a natural collapse.[3] Ryan Mackey has used this material in a similar fashion.[4] Since I find Mackey’s reasoning more clear than Roberts’ I will take him in this paper as representative of this position.

Response to Mark Roberts' “WTC Not a Demolition” video

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?