Monday, 30 March 2009

DON'T BE SUCKERED BY DISINFORMATION: 9 Core Problems with the Arguments and Behaviours of the 911 Truth "Debunkers"

It is obvious from the science based forensic evidence that the attacks of 911 were an Inside Job. However, many intelligent people continue to be fooled by the relatively sophisticated DISINFORMATION put out by the 911 Debunkers.

In this essay I will identify Debunker tricks and strategy so that readers will become aware of their tactics so as to avoid being easily misled. For the purpose of this article I will label as "SUCKERS" those people who have unknowingly joined the Debunker bandwagon without fully understanding the situation (no disrespect intended here).

Note there is a distinction here. The Debunkers are deliberately lying and distorting evidence whereas the SUCKERS, who are not necessarily bad intentioned, have "innocently" accepted the the false claims:


In a criminal investigation, when some minor leads are proven to be dead ends, the whole case is not dismissed, especially when the preponderance of evidence is pointing in the other direction.

It is true the 911 truth movement has claimed varying pieces of evidence were solid that were later disproven or reconciled with the official narrative. However, it DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW that the entire mountain of evidence should be automatically discounted in response. This is not a rational approach.

Nevertheless, SUCKERS often take this irrational view, promoted by the Debunkers, and dismiss the entire 911 truth case after being exposed to a few minor, or misrepresented (straw man), errors in the truth argument. The key point to remember here is that there remains a core of physical evidence completely refuting the official story, and that there are many more bits of supporting evidence indicating 911 was an inside job.


SUCKERS almost always overlook the fact that Debunker arguments rely on false analogies or misrepresentations of evidence to make their case. Often we see Debunkers providing a "straw man" explanation that does not reasonably address the real evidence in question. Such tactics are a prime tool used to provide a false "answer" to the unsuspecting.

For instance, the photographic evidence of Molten Steel at the World Trade Centre site, that strongly implies incendiary explosives were used to bring down the buildings, is claimed to be molten aluminium, or even lead, in highly dubious "refutations." The Debunkers are counting on the fact that most people will accept their claims, often made by "authority" figures, without doing any fact checking with regard to the lack of scientific reality behind their spurious claims.

What is worse is that many SUCKERS, even if they do pick up on the significance of these deceptions, do not attempt to reconsider the whole Debunker position (ie engage in some proper fact checking). Often SUCKERS are psychologically beholden to the "big lie." The truth of the matter is that although the Debunker arguments may seem reasonable at first glance they are almost always deceptive, describing conditions that do not fit what was observed.


The Debunkers make many outright false claims that they put forward as absolute truths. They often state, and the SUCKERS believe it, that EVERY(!) truth claim is unsupported by science. They often quip that very specific scientific evidence, proving the inside job, is not really evidence at all, and that the data being presented could be "anything." This is a con usually tried against less informed people who have trouble articulating the science.

Another very common rhetorical tactic used by the Debunkers is to imply that the physics defying nature of the WTC collapses, the molten steel, the pulverised concrete, and the questionable reactions of the authorities were all EXPECTED phenomena and behaviour- thus attempting to whitewash these serious matters.

The Debunkers also claim that all the conspiracy adherents are either poor scientists or inept professionals, not qualified to make any judgements, whereas their experts are. The final Debunker falsehood I will point out here is the view that more and more people are giving up on the 911 truth movement whereas the exact opposite is true.
Readers should note that all these claims are simply rhetorical statements designed to demoralise. It's a psychological tactic designed to make people give up the fight.


SUCKERS are often unaware that many Debunker arguments run in opposition to the scientific method. Commonly Debunkers will play upon irrational rhetorical statements to lull the subject into a false mindset with regard to a logical consideration of specific scientific material. For instance, they will claim that it MUST have been impossible to rig the World Trade Centre Buildings with explosives and maintain a cover up, ergo all evidence indicating this occurrence must be wrong. Debunkers and SUCKERS alike will then try to conjure up any explanation, no matter how implausible, in order to "deal" with the offensive material. This is backwards methodology - fitting the facts to suit a pre-determined hypothesis. Such attempts to twist and downplay significant real evidence in order to fit a predetermined conclusion, rather than objectively examining the facts and THEN drawing conclusions from the data, is pseudo science at work.


The Debunker protagonists will repeatedly use the words - idiot, charlatan, fraud, incompetent, nutcase, wacko, wingnut, moonbat etc. to browbeat opponents. These comments are commonly used in circumstances where the first point in my list here is true [1.instances where the 911 truth movement has claimed a particular piece of evidence was solid whereupon later review showed it to be disproven or reconciled with the official narrative.]

The SUCKERS, to which this essay is addressed in part, get swept up by the Debunker intimidation and forget to be objective about the evidence as a whole, particularly material that cannot be refuted by the Debunkers. The ridicule here is intended to attract fellow cynics, rather than the analytically minded, and to demoralise opponents in order to undermine their confidence. One should note that even when you are right, continued use of ridicule can be psychologically damaging.


SUCKERS have trouble understanding that there is a huge element of skulduggery in the 911 issue and that individuals can be pressured to change their original stories and that experts can LIE. In cases of changing witness testimony the original response must be fairly considered juxtaposed to the basic scientific evidence and in depth research. SUCKERS forget that individuals running an operation like the 911 attacks must be ruthless and willing to kill any witness that causes too much trouble. Already there have been a number of suspicious deaths of some of the best witnesses to explosions in the Towers and World Trade Centre 7. People can be pressured to change their stories.

Considering the Debunkers themselves, and their propensity to lie, it is essential to recognise that most of these people have ties to, or work for, the very people that we should be considering as suspects. When many members of the official NIST investigatory team into the building collapses are explosive experts, or are linked to individuals involved in research on precisely the type of incendiary explosive that was identified as being used to bring down the towers, then you have a huge "political" problem.


SUCKERS who are caught up in the Debunker deception will tend to overlook the fact that the Debunkers often get their own facts "wrong", lie, put up false analogies, grossly distort evidence etc. The SUCKERS often refuse to acknowledge the truth here, do little or no follow up fact checking, and fall back on the Debunker rhetoric [point 3] that every conspiracy claim is wrong. It's classic head-in-the-sand type stuff. However, the Debunkers themselves only rarely acknowledge their mistakes often claiming that the truth advocates are the ones pushing most of the lies or "errors." Most revealingly the Debunkers will commonly try on the same old false arguments in different settings, rather than packing away such lies once proven to be false. This is a sure sign of duplicitous behaviour. I feel sorry for the SUCKERS who believe the Debunkers. For SUCKERS it is difficult for them to admit error when so caught up in so much disinformation, especially when laced with so much ridicule. If you are a cynical or arrogant SUCKER then coming to realise the truth can be a long road indeed.


Most, if not all, of the top online Debunkers are either paid shills for the government or severely deluded. There are also SUCKERS who believe in the Debunker position who appear in online forums and comment sections to heap ridicule and parrot arguments. Appearing in forums and comment sections these people can give the impression of support for the official story, especially when Debunkers appear claiming to have expertise in whatever topic is being discussed. However, these people when confronted with knowledgeable 911 truth individuals are always shot down in flames.

The fact that there might be numerous Debunkers and SUCKERS does not mean they are any more right than before. The same situation with regards to nitpicking evidence, addressing false analogies and gross misrepresentation in general applies here. At the heart of the matter is the fact that upon inspection the Debunker case falls apart. The perceived support here is just another aspect of the cover up. The organised "professional" Debunkers are here for a reason - to quell support for criminal trials. [And note that Debunkers with proven ties to the crime, who are found to be deliberately lying about evidence are themselves facing charges of Treason.]


The Debunkers claim that the truth people are crackpots with bizarre motives, that truthers are out for fame and fortune. In actuality nothing could be further from reality. Most of the key truth people have acted out of great personal risk and want only for the public to become informed so that justice can be served. The hardcore Debunkers on the other hand contain many individuals who are connected to the official investigation (cover up). Conversely it is the Debunkers whose motives should be questioned.


Coming to grips with the Debunker misinformation is as much about understanding PSYCHOLOGY as it is an effort in doing thorough research and engaging in logical thinking. The Debunkers' aim is to downplay the evidence, to whitewash the issues and deceive the reader to SUCKER them into erroneous thought patterns. Thankfully this will only work on intelligent people who have not done enough research ie. those taking at face value the Debunkers claims. The best informed truth advocates will always destroy the Debunkers in any debate addressing the key evidence.

Unfortunately many intelligent people can be hoodwinked because they are often overconfident in terms of trusting their established knowledge base. When confronted by something outside their realm of understanding, especially when it involves complex trickery or a new paradigm, the person will often go into denial or be unable to see outside the box. Laziness and arrogance will lead individuals avoid fact checking causing many to draw false conclusions from half baked Debunker arguments.

Thankfully, despite the Debunker efforts, at the heart of the matter is core scientific evidence, concerning the WTC collapses which reveals Molten Steel and Thermate phenomena that can only be reasonably explained via the use of exotic explosives. The proof is right there and in the end the Debunker claims will never wash. Don't be a SUCKER and let the real criminals get away with murder. Awareness of deceptive practices and a bit of research will go a long way in winning the information war and seeing that Justice is done.

By Spookypunkos

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 30th, 2009.]

1 comment:

JM Talboo said...

The "Four Ds of Debunking" as outlined by Stewart Bradley...

1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Straw Man" issues that are easily knocked down.

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.