Wednesday, January 1, 7000 - Permanent Top Post

Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial

This is a straw man and an ad hominem fallacy. Not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same things, nor does believing in aliens invalidate their arguments on other theories. The only thing linking these things is that they are all perceived to be conspiracy theories. Each should be evaluated on its own merits.

However, if a theorist bases their beliefs on poor argumentation, then other conspiracy theorists may want to distance themselves from him/her or question that theorist's ability to support their own ideas. Many such people are accused of being deliberately planted to discredit other theories, a technique called the 'poisoned well'. The media then proceeds to discredit an entire investigative movement based on a few silly theories - a strawman attack.

When the media lumps anybody who doesn't trust the government version of 9-11 into the category of flat earthers and holocaust deniers, any real conspiracy there might have been is given the ultimate defense. Namely, a pre-emptive, universal ad hominem on anyone who would dare talk about it publicly, the archetypal 'tin foil hatter'.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

911 and War by Deception Documentary by Ryan Dawson

911 and War by Deception Documentary by Ryan Dawson


Debunking Ryan Dawson:

Joe Rogan Explains Why Everyone Should Love Alex Jones

Joe Rogan Explains Why Everyone Should Love Alex Jones


Debunking Joe Rogan on Alien Abduction:

Hey Joe Rogan, Debunk This!:

Joe Rogan Explains Why Everyone Should Love Alex Jones

Debunking Potholer54 and Global Warming/Climate Change Propaganda

Comment About Potholer54 Climate Video - Latest claim: The Greenland ice sheet is growing:


Comment about The Above Video:

This Video nails potholer .. it confirms a lot of what I am watching by Tony Heller.

He makes a good point that that Carbon dioxide levels follow changes in temps. Past heating of the earth, hundreds of millions of years ago, was most certainly due to air pressure. Present fluctuations are due to solar output and cosmic rays/cloud formation ... the loss of ice in the northern hemisphere has been due to recent solar heating and dirty snow .... from pollution.

I like Tony Heller because he also points to obvious fraud committed by NASA. You can see with the land based temps that are being made up. I shared this recently:

2017 - The Fakest Year On Record At NASA And NOAA

Because the data is very good for the States you can check the claims carefully. The claim is that US temps are going up .... but from the data they are not. A video such as this SHOULD  be a red flag that something fishy is going on .... that’s the key in my mind. When you uncover instances of lying or cooking of data, like for 911 debunkers, then you become suspicious of all their blanket claims etc. And then you look to see what the critics say and what happens in the real world. How are we getting record cold winters when snow was supposed to be a thing of the past? While we’ve see some heatwaves around the world we’ve also see cold too. It’s not a simple matter that things are getting warmer. The climate predictions have all been wrong too. We were supposed to be stuck in drought down here but Australia is getting a lot of consistent rain. There is no drought.

So, if the world is getting hotter due to increased CO2, why has Antarctica put on record ice while the northern ice sheets shrunk? And how has dirty snow, that the Chinese think was responsible for 50% of the ice loss in the Himalayas, impacted on the northern ice loss and raised temps? This is different from C02 in the atmosphere.  And now, why are the northern icecaps growing in thickness ? The ice at the north pole is thicker, although the extent is down due to prevailing winds. Plus the Greenland ice sheet put on record amounts too. We have other explanations that account for the snow and ice variations, although we are in a natural warmer period at the moment having come out of the little ice age.

Also See:


Potholer54, Not the Honest Climate Change Guru the cult members needed:

Potholer54 tacitly agrees that 80 years of Future Warming are a Nothingburger:

Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case:

Global Warming Debunked | William Happer and Stefan Molyneux:

Debunking Potholer54 and Global Warming/Climate Change Propaganda

Debunking Ryan Dawson

By Spookyone

Many followers of the peace activist Ryan Dawson have been dismayed and embarrassed by his posts that rail against the forensic evidence that proves the World Trade Centre Buildings were brought down using explosive demolition on 911. His insult laden attacks are completely erroneous and centre on the false idea that it was POSSIBLE for fire to bring down these buildings in the way we saw. He says to stop using this as the best argument proving the case. (Regardless of his position he also acknowledges that explosives were used in some capacity at the WTC, although it seems not in regard to bringing down the buildings!?? Only in the basement areas?)

What has happened is that Ry has visited one of the disinformation sites, 911Myths (if memory serves), which he thinks explains away the 911 WTC forensic case very well (he used words to similar effect). It's a case of believing in false explanations or equivalences - something he likes to point out when addressing other issues. 

Without an effective knowledge of the forensics provided by various experts, who demonstrated their points through experiment, Mr Dawson has been suckered into believing numerous falsities and is acting as an agent of division, essentially doing the work of the 911truth gatekeepers. He's acting like a disinformation troll.

Specifically Ry talks about fire temperatures being hot enough to significantly weaken the steel structure of the WTC Towers so that they'll weaken and cause collapse. He refers to a paper pointing to incidents of high fire temperatures, but this paper addresses isolated temperatures, not sustained heat.

In numerous postings he liked to quote from "Temperatures in flames and fires" which points to enclosed room temperatures reaching 1000 degrees C. However, the same study pointed out that isolated readings from a candle could reach similarly high temps. Essentially the paper, for those with wisdom enough to see it, debunks the idea that temperature alone can provide enough energy to weaken steel. When it comes to weakening a large steel structure, that conducts heat very well, we are talking about a sustained energy/heat that is needed to cause sagging, not localised temperatures. 

When we talk about an actual 800 degree inferno, one that CAN demolish a steel structure, like the Windsor Building in Spain, we are talking about a huge BUILDING-ENGULFLING fire with high overall sustained temperatures. The fire in that instance caused damage but required many hours of heating to do so. The key point to understand is that there's a difference between heat and temperature and that we need to turn to real world examples and experiments to see what is required to impact steel structures. Just to be clear, here is a video explaining the difference between heat and temperature:

Heat vs Temperature [Video]

Also see: The Fires - The Twin Towers' Fires and Their Possible Effects - Fire-induced column failure collapse theories, such as Prof. Bazant's, assume scenarios in which fires consume entire floors and burn for extended periods at temperatures of over 800° C. There are several problems with such scenarios. More:

To reiterate the point evident in the paper on enclosed fire temps, one should understand that just as a candle or an isolated room fire will not have enough sustained energy to weaken a steel high rise structure neither will most building fires. A building fire needs to be massive in order to impact the structure, like what we saw with the Madrid fire, or where we find instances of structures put under severe fire testing conditions that provide sustained, hours long temperatures near to 1000 degrees Celsius. It's the energy that counts, not necessarily the temperature, especially as the steel will wick way localised heating (being heat conductive). Below is a video that shows what happens to steel frames buildings that suffer from large fires: 

9/11 In Perspective [Video]

Furthermore, even with limited weakening, the WTC buildings were designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. If the building loses 50% of its strength at the fire point (only there), nothing will happen because it is over engineered to take five times its anticipated load. For the building to start falling apart, even with the aircraft damage, the fire would need to be enormous.  

The video 9/11 Debunked: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact, by RKOwens4, the page WTC 707 Impact, at, and the First time in history page at, all make the case, based on statements from Leslie Robertson, that the Twin Towers were only designed to survive a low speed, jet fuel free, impact from an airliner. This article shows otherwise...

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact:

After an in-depth evaluation of all the relevant facts the authors conclude, "The truth is simply inescapable: the Twin Towers should not have collapsed from the plane impacts and fires."

The fact is, the towers were not flaming torches. Furthermore due to the large aircraft holes, the fires at the impact zones were not enclosed fires either (an argument for high temperatures that Dawson continually makes). And the towers didn't act like chimneys. Although there was an open hole in the side of the building the elevator shafts didn't run the length of the building with the exception of one freight elevator, and the bottom sections of the building would need to be open to allow the drawing in of air to support the process. Regardless, there is no sign of an intense widespread fire caused by such an effect that would NECESSARILY be revealed by glowing orange flames. The intense orange flames would have been visible on all sides of the building and all we saw was limited flaming and a lot of black smoke.

Another point to be countered is that Ry doesn't really seem to understand that the fuel load in the Towers was nothing special. What is on fire are normal office contents mostly made from different types of carbon arrangements like wood or plastic. The fuel load here is not huge and the air feeding the fire is not exceptional either. He imagines an inferno when there is no evidence for it. Smoke and some flame does not equal an inferno, regardless of the fact that it was ignited by aircraft fuel (kerosene). 

Quote: "Jet Fuel isn’t the only thing burning. There is also a building and a plane. Molten aluminum brass and copper all under 1650F
Inside a building that’s well over 2750F heat wise. Even a chimney using just wood reaches 2100F. Learn fire basics the difference between open flames and indoor flames. 
That’s doesn’t mean Fire DID take down WTCs by itself, but it does mean that it CAN. More over steal loses 90% of its tensile strength way before it’s melting point. Did people just skip high school chemistry?"

Notice from the above quote that Ry is misconstruing the information found in sources like "Temperatures in flames and fires" (cited previously) where he thinks that inside the building the sustained(?!) temperatures reached 2750F - a preposterous proposition. Furthermore, Aluminium and Copper simply melt in hot fire conditions, they do not burn and add to the fire. Experiments prove this. The WTC tower fires were simply not indoor flames, and not large, certainly not like what we've seen with the Madrid fire, which is an acknowledged structure damaging fire. The fires on the floors moved around, it was not all engulfing. The problem Ry has is with understanding the limited amount of energy available coming from the burning building contents that burnt section by section.

Another argument that Ry''s been using is that the upper third of the WTC towers simply fell (weakened by fire) and crushed the lower blocks. This was thoroughly debunked in debate more than 10 years ago (and explained in video sometime after that). The lighter upper section could not have crushed the stronger lower section with (cross braced) columns stacked upon columns that go all the way to the foundations. How can the top possibly fall through all the upright columns, especially considering the interlinked core column sections, without encountering significant resistance and slowing down? The problem is highlighted in a number of videos produced by physics teacher David Chandler.

In the first video he shows that some other force is aiding in the constant acceleration of the top block as it moves downward. In the second video he shows a real world example of what happens in a gravity driven collapse (there is a point of deceleration when one block section slams into the undamaged lower section).

Downward Acceleration of the North Tower [Video]
What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like [Video]

For a comprehensive look into this issue start at issue "#9.The Pile-Driver" in the debate linked to below.

Response to Mechanical Engineer "tfk" at JREF:

Moreover, the basic physics in play, that demonstrates the point Chandler is making, is outlined via a series of simple experiments, in a video made by Jonathan Cole. This really is high school physics (a term used by Dawson to bash his critics, even though it is his arguments that are in error). 

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses [Video] 

In this last video, from Chandler once again, he points to the explosive nature of the Tower's destruction on 911. 

North Tower Exploding [Video]

A Master of Engineering, Gordon Ross, goes into more detail about the Tower demolitions, and shows that explosive charges were set every three floors and that there are clear signs of explosive damage to the columns. This helps one to understand exactly what happened.

Gordon Ross MEng investigation into the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 [Video]

At certain times Ry also rubbishes the proof that there was melted steel and uses the standard debunker canard that it was simply melted metal, implying it was aluminium, knowing (perhaps) that that melted steel would be a sign of incendiary use (thermite) since there is not enough building material or air to raise temperatures in the rubble pile to cause the widespread melting of steel. However the evidence of melted steel is undeniable. Only someone ignorant of the actual evidence of this melting could believe that only aluminium was melted.

Melted Steel Beams and Molten Iron - ESO - Experts Speak Out [Video] 

Despite contending that only melted aluminium was possible, Ry's argument also endeavours to cover the presence of a thermitic signature found in the dust - the previously molten iron microspheres - which is an acknowledgement of an incendiary heat source. Ry offers up an argument, using known debunker arguments, that some sort of thermitic reaction could occur from building contents. However, to have such a reaction you NEED particles with a lot of surface area in close proximity to each other, in a mixture. Chunks of aluminium and iron oxide, that one might find in buildings will not cause the sort of observed melting events or the formation of microspheres, even under high temperatures. You will not get melted steel beams and you will not get literally millions of molten metal spheres that were discovered in the dust. It simply won't work.

It doesn't seem like Ry understands that melting of the metal (steel) could only be caused via man made thermitic materials. Again, this looks like a case of ignorance or lack of understanding on Ry's part where the evidence for what happened is simple and straightforward. In this video by Jonathan Cole, we have an assemblage of the data with experiments.

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate [Video]

What's more is there is also evidence of severely melted concrete, something that ordinary building fires will not cause.

These points of evidence do not mean that the Towers or Building 7 (a structure also brought down via controlled demolition) were demolished only using thermite, or explosive nano-thermite (see next). We don't know exactly what combination of techniques was used on the World Trade Centre buildings, but we have clear evidence that nano-thermite explosives [pdf], and see here and here, plus incendiaries(thermite) were used in some capacity. The forensic proof is there and it has not been debunked (despite the many false explanations from debunkers). 

While, Ry does indicate that explosives were used in some capacity on the towers, because of the witnesses and damage in the basement areas, he nevertheless pushes the argument that fire could have brought down these structural steel buildings ... and the conditions present COULD have cause the collapses (he implies this strongly). Does he think that explosives were only used in the basements and that the rest of what happened was simply due to fire? This is the implication one gets from his present (not fully disclosed?) narrative on the issue. He says the focus on the fire is a tiny part of the whole issue, and that people are "dumbasses" to focus on this. 

Quote: "Listen up dumb asses. 
Saying fire can’t bring a building down is a really stupid argument to say it has to be bombs, shape charges etc. A fire with no jet fuel... at all can bring down a building if the fire prevention system fails. "
"Fire Can take down a building. It really can. That doesn’t mean it Did. It means that yes it is physically possible so stop making that your best argument. Class dismissed."

Physically possible yes, but in the case of the Towers, and Building 7, clearly not - and certainly not in the way observed (with constant acceleration through massive resistance, with lateral ejections of debris, and free fall acceleration). So, why push arguments that essentially rest on disproven debunker claims that fire DID bring down the towers when they didn't? This is just confusing the audience. Understanding how fire impacts buildings in the real world, and how the subsequent collapses are impossible without explosives is a REAL issue. MANY people still think that the towers were NOT blown up, that they came down due to the FIRES, and they have no idea about other aspects of the case. 

The value of the forensic side is that SOME people will immediately recognise the truth that the 911 attacks were a false flag - from this evidence alone. Other people will more readily understand the Israeli involvement. BOTH lines of inquiry are relevant and one side should lead to the other. It takes two minutes to understand that the Israelis were involved once you understand the buildings were explosively demolished. The arrest of the Israeli spy ring, with "explosive ordinance" people provides a clear and simple link to what happened, along with the facts about the moving companies(logistics), and the building owner (Larry Silverstein).

Ry actually does a good job debunking the debunkers on the truck bombs issue.

Recently Ry's been referencing the destruction of the Plasco building in Tehran and using that incident to back his contention that fire can demolish steel framed buildings. However, once again, there is more to the story than Ry's simple interpretation as videos of what happened in Iran raise alarm bells. Apart from the explosive nature of the collapse, with material being ejected laterally well below the collapse points, the clean up site featured molten metal/steel being removed, which is a red flag for incendiaries.

Plasco Building Collapse: Molten Metal Compilation [Video]


What happened here is very suspicious, and doesn't seem like the result of a "collapse" or that it was the result of a conventional office fire. To that point, see this recent 20 page report by The destruction of this building in Iran looks like it was made to "debunk" the 911 forensic evidence. Regardless of whether there was motive behind what happened to the Plasco building, the melted steel in the pile points to other non-conventional factors at work that caused the building's demise. 

Even if one contends that this building was a natural collapse, there are some important differences to the collapses on 9/11 to consider that comments posted here noted...

Fred Dietz1 day ago I’m going to say “inadequate sheer studs”, as there was already an Iranian architect on Press TV saying that Plasco Building (Iran’s first high-rise) was never built inline with “national construction regulations”. But that’s also a world of difference from WTC 7, which had over 3,800 sheer studs that were inspected every year by NYC (and this was revealed in a 2012 FOIA). NIST outright lied in their report and said WTC 7 didn’t have any sheer studs.

T Wayland5 hours ago Fred Dietz in another video i saw about this they were talking about how the building had needed repairs for years.

Ariane Kosmolowski1 day ago This is not a symmetrical collapse as seen in WTC7. Different parts of the building collapse one after another. It also takes a while, and this is only 17 stories.

For an-depth examination of the larger issue here, see:

Other Collapses in Perspective: An Examination of Other Steel Structures Collapsing due to Fire and their Relation to the WTC:

To conclude, Ry, rather than slagging off on the explosive demolition science explained by the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group, should have taken up the cause with them.

Richard Gage, the founder of AE911truth, has, according to Dawson, told people that if they wanted to explore the issue of who conducted the attacks to talk to Ry. Ry in response shat on Gage for his non-committal views on the Pentagon, an issue that could have been resolved via a cooperative approach with people going from AE911 to Ry who could have explained the physical details of the Pentagon attack (like Jim Hoffman did). So rather than looking past the fence sitting position taken by AE911truth, and coming together, Ry shat on them. In other circumstances Ry talks to people with views he disagrees with and this should have been a similar sort of case where he could have filled in the blanks.

What's worse is that Ry has gone off the reservation in attacking AE911truth's forensic case using transparent disinformation as if he is completely ignorant of this material. He often portrays himself as being the adult in the room and that 'he's forgotten more things about 911 than other people will ever know', but in this case he comes across as a complete ignoramus. It's really embarrassing.

So the fault here - this supposed division when it comes to forming a united 911 truth front, despite all of Ry's winging about how AE911 is 'holding back the truth with its obsession towards the WTC forensics' - is with him.  

In terms of psychology, Ry says he not arrogant but how many arrogant people think they are simply right and that everyone else is wrong? He talks down to his audience saying that high school physics backs his position which is wrong. It makes him look stupid and makes one question his analytical skills on other issues. Why didn't Ry consider that all of these engineering experts, and other specialists, who EXPLAINED their reasoning, and who debunked the disinformation Ry seems to have lapped up, why didn't he think they might know what they were talking about and looked further? Was he unable to get his head around the material? Does his world view, when it comes to basic physical principles, including fire, rest on a number of misunderstandings/faulty assumptions? 

As a top researcher Ry could have reached out and put his position to one of the AE911truth experts and they could have deconstructed his assumptions. If he had watched the video material on the forensics, such as the series put out by Jonathan Cole, he could have worked out a lot of things for himself (perhaps). But he didn't go that far and seems to think all these people are incompetent/idiots - people who have used real world experiments (science) to show what is and is not possible. 

Thinking of people as idiots, isn't a helpful mindset to have, especially if the idiots consist of learned individuals. It seems that Ry has been played by the disinformation trolls and those that have been influenced by their faulty arguments.


This is the documentary video documentary, from which Ry gets his a portion of his ideas concerning the destruction of the Twin Towers. It's called "How The Twin Towers Collapsed - Real Stories" from 2001:

Note: The presentation her fails to show evidence of a hot catastrophic fire, and pushes the idea that the large floor-space acreage somehow made the fires hotter than other building fires, and implied throughout that the buildings acted like hollow tubes in terms of load distribution, and downplayed the strength of the inner tube (the massively strong cores). They tell the viewer that the force of gravity would allow the lighter tops of the buildings to demolish the lower stronger sections, that the outside columns buckled as the tops "fell" downwards (again ignoring the strength of the cores) - the points raised here were addressed and debunked earlier in this post. 

In sections of the documentary some of the structural steel is shown to have suffered from explosive impacts - something they say was due to the aircraft exploding inside the building but which was more than likely due to the demolition charges that took out the skyscrapers. There are many sections of building steel, appearing in the Gordon Ross and AE911truth videos seen earlier, that show the impact of both explosives and incendiaries upon the structure. 

Related Info:

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition 
Quote: In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire.
... NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.