The Argument of the 911 Truth Debunkers as Analogous to Denying the Existence of a Car.

These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:

"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"

"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."

"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."

"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."

"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."

"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."

"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."

Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.

If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.

911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)

Pat Curley Claims to Find Strawmen, but Only Exposes His Failed Logic and Poor Research

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted the following video by Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth today:



Pat states:

Steven Jones tackles two objections to his "research" that I have never heard before:

1. That somebody contaminated the samples with nanothermite. Huh? No, Steven, we don't think there's really nanosupercallifragilisticexpiallythermite in the samples at all.

2. Perhaps the falling buildings just generated the nanothermite. Err, see my response above.

Pat is tricky with this first one, because although he has never outright claimed the samples were contaminated, he has implied it. As noted by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale in his post "Crazy Conspiracy Theories":

I've just listened to the debate between Dylan and Pat and I got rather annoyed when Pat and the host were crticizing the purity of the dust samples and the chain of custody etc. and Pat was talking about how the samples weren't kept in sealed bags or whatever. The thing is, Steven Jones wouldn't even need to be doing this if the officials had done so. You can criticize his work all you want but its still better than anything the government has done. Organisations like USGS and RJ Lee etc probably do have professionally collected sealed samples, so why can't we have open access to study them? Will we find red chips in them? We know USGS were covering up the existance of Molybdenum rich spherules so who knows what else they are covering up. Besides, the whole issue is irrelevent anyway. Because it's not as if these highly engineered thermitic red chips are easy to make or get a hold of. By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

And the material is super-duper! ;)

The reason Jones brings up the fact that the buildings did not create the nano-thermite chips is because 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening has in fact used ridiculous explanations akin to this in the past when he claimed that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires!

Pat states:

"And it's interesting to hear that the Waterboy is trying to make nanothermite himself."

Yes, it is interesting to know that Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, whom you call waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory, is a skilled enough chemist to create nano-thermite! You act as if he worked installing water coolers in office buildings!

Here is a 26 picture slide show Ryan produced, half of the images are nano-thermite residues and half are materials extracted from WTC dust samples. Can you tell us which ones are which, Pat?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32512879@N05/sets/72157611572140729/show/

One of Pat's regular commenters "Billman" states:

Pfft, wow. Such hypocracy from this guy.

So now he's saying the samples couldn't have been tainted with super-thermite... but when they are given to another independent researcher who DID NOT get any evidence of unreacted thermite, it was "ZOMG! The gubmint tampered with mah sampelz!!"

This bunkum is refuted here.