9/11 Internet Debunking For Dummies

Rather than go through the same circular discussions yet again, and in the spirit of John Wiley & Sons "... For Dummies" series of books, I thought I'd start a concise little "debunking" manual.

www.dummies.com...

Step 1: Make about 6 (or more) anonymous sock puppet accounts at each of various Internet discussion forums where the events of September 11 are discussed.

So that we don't need to see the same 30 or so websites over again, here is the "master list" of "debunking" references (but try to never provide a reference source unless absolutely necessary)

Step 2: The "master list" for "debunkers:"
forums.randi.org...

Step 3: Use the words "moot," "incredulity," and "ilk" whenever possible.

Step 4: Personal insults, "horselaugh" ridicule, and degrading language are your best friends.

Step 5: Don't forget Popular Mechanics, Fox "News," and other conservative pundits:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Step 6: Get on the phone or instant message service(s) and get your "debunking" buddies to join whichever discussion(s) you are actively "debunking." Agree with them whenever possible and ridicule others.

Step 7: Binary "black and white" logic and absolutist language are also your friends. Always remember: "Us and Them" [with a nod to Pink Floyd here].

Step 8: Logical Fallacies are a one way street, they are always going the "debunker's" direction. Always.
skepticwiki.org...(index)

Step 9: Make a bunch of rapid posts in quick succession. Don't allow your opponent time to respond before moving on (usually off-topic) with 3 or more additional posts. Quantity over quality here.

Step 10: Selective quoting and the Strawman Fallacy will probably be your most-often used tools.

en.wikipedia.org...

skepticwiki.org...

Step 11: In the spirit of Martha Stewart, "bias is a good thing." The US Government can do no wrong. Conspiracies do not exist.
skepticwiki.org...

Enjoy your "debunking."

If the Pentagon or Flight 77 ever come up in a discussion, use the photos from this "conspiracy theory" page:

www.aerospaceweb.org...

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Step 12:

Use facts; as they make truthers run the other way. Typically, when a truther is presented with facts you will get one or two reactions:

1. Goal Post location compromised.

2. A loud chant or bumper stick that cries: "911 Was An Inside Jobby Job!"

Step 12.a. Use animated GIF's and/or Photoshopped pictures to ridicule.

Originally posted by rhunter
Step 12.a. Use animated GIF's and/or Photoshopped pictures to ridicule.

12.a. - edited: Use animated GIF's and/or Photoshopped pictures to show how ridiculous leading members of the truth movement are.

(not photoshopped, Gage actually brought cardboard boxes to a debate!)

First of all, props on the work, it's pretty funny and well structured.

On a more serious note, do you think there's no need for debunking at all? To me, debunking seems to be a even more tedious task than 'conspiracy theorizing' as you're more or less trying to find the conspiracy in the conspiracy. I've got the utmost respect for real debunkers (by which I mean, people who don't debunk unless they really think they see the bigger picture) - even if they're wrong sometimes.

Oh well, I guess I'll follow your manual to debunk myself

Originally posted by CameronFox
Use facts; as they make truthers run the other way. Typically, when a truther is presented with facts you will get one or two reactions:

Feel free to test that assumption with any of my 9-11 related threads or posts.

Notice also that there are already posts in this thread insulting both sides? What does that accomplish. I'm not a truther or a debunker but there are serious questions that I have about 9/11 and one shouldn't be insulted for asking them.

reply to post by amazing


Nothing wrong with asking question. Truthers have been doing it for over 7 years now. For the most part, they ignore the answers.

I saw a great video once of Alex Jones instructing some of his followers how to win in their debate.

Shout them down.
Change the subject as soon as they start to debunk.
Throw so many points out, that it would be impossible to debunk more than one or two, meanwhile, the other 1000 points you made stand.

When i was a trainee. My Boss told me specific! This is the proper way to do the Job. But later on i learned that he was wrong. Because i made the mistake of doing what he taught me was right

When it comes to this forum i only read someone else's words. And that's all. Its just a bunch of words.

Really?

A "My website can beat up your website" thread to prove anything at all?

Why does anyone think that references what other people put up on a webpage do anything to prove anything is any more or less credible than what someone else put on their webpage. One of the first things on that list is about "debunking the freefall speed myth." Now you just have to make up your minds because the fact that the buildings fall at, and listen closely, VERY NEAR freefall speed is still being disputed by whom exactly? If you want to look more credible than a bunch of nuts, try not to lie and stretch the truth to show how credible you are. Seems simple.

reply to post by rhunter


That was a classic post man.
Star and flag for sure.

I wish more people would pay attention to it, but like some of my threads, I feel sure that you were prepared to be ignored.
The truth is too much for some people, so it always works best if they simply ignore it.

The most entertaining part of this discussion is that, if you tell a "debunker" that they have just committed a logical fallacy, then they treat it as if logic is a bad thing.
I was in a "discussion" with an individual concerning 911.
It got heated and we were in public, so it drew a small crowd of on-lookers.

I live in a very conservative part of the continuous 48 (not like a real conservative, but the neo-religious annoying kind), and I actually had this said to me, "You must be one of those intellectual college types".

Like it was the absolute worst insult that the dude could muster.

And the idiots watching all clapped in unison as if they had collectively answered the question correctly in Final Jeopardy.
(A more proper simile would have included The Price Is Right. That's right. I used a simile and not a metaphor)

The only thing that I can say that summarizes how I feel about these folks who buy into the official conspiracy theory is this....

The closest that anyone can come to understanding infinity is through pondering the nature of stupidity.

reply to post by CameronFox


So Cameron Fox, hows the debunking going of Mike Rupperts Financial aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy?

I mean, like the information that I posted in your thread here? Which, subsequently you never responded in the thread again...

Just to make sure you didn't miss it there, here ya go:

Google Video Link

Its all fun and games to make fun of someone until you refuse to understand what they are saying, then its just sad...

I'll bet you couldn't even tell us what Gage talks about, because if you did it would click in your brain mid-sentence that the OS of 911 is wrong...

To quote yourself,

'EPIC FAIL'



edited to add

[edit on 11-3-2010 by beebs]

reply to post by CameronFox


Were you trying to commit the most logical fallacies with the least number of words or was that a really bad attempt at dry humor?

-Hasty Generalization
-Veiled Ad hominem
& the best and most used of all logical fallacies....

A LIE.

We asked a group of international scientists to examine randomly collected dust samples from ground zero and we loved their answer.

I believe the answer was published in an article found in a peer reviewed and refereed journal titled the Open Chemical Physics Journal.
The title of the article is Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

Here is a link to the article just in case you doubted me.

You do know what thermite is, right?

Originally posted by rhunter
Step 3: Use the words "moot," "incredulity," and "ilk" whenever possible.

Step 13: Mix it up a little every fiscal quarter or so- use the phrases "damned fool conspiracy website(s)", "conspiracy stories," and "fetish" (preferably in a 1-2-punch combo right after "conspiracy"), but only if you go by Dave, and you are psychic.

@Josephus- Yeah, it seems that satire has become something of a lost art form. I remember being assigned to read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" back in [public] junior high school in the "not-the-nicest/affluent" part of town. That kind of education clearly was beheaded by the Axe of Political Correctness and Conformity (and of course drastic state budget cuts) IMHO.

I'm afraid that one usually does get what one pays for, unfortunately...

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Really?

A "My website can beat up your website" thread to prove anything at all?

Why does anyone think that references what other people put up on a webpage do anything to prove anything is any more or less credible than what someone else put on their webpage. One of the first things on that list is about "debunking the freefall speed myth." Now you just have to make up your minds because the fact that the buildings fall at, and listen closely, VERY NEAR freefall speed is still being disputed by whom exactly? If you want to look more credible than a bunch of nuts, try not to lie and stretch the truth to show how credible you are. Seems simple.

This is quite an interesting post as I never posted it. I am not sure what it is replying to, who it is addressing, but I know that the only person with access to this account is me and I did not leave this post.

Mods?

Originally posted by Josephus23
I believe the answer was published in an article found in a peer reviewed and refereed journal titled the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Except that was not peer reviewed, nor referred, it is simply a vanity publisher that will publish anything as long as you pay $800....

www.libraryjournal.com...

reply to post by dereks


I didn't see a single reference to the article that I linked, but only to the publisher of the journal.

I also noticed that the submitted hoax article was the only instance quoted as there being either any type of mistake made or any purposeful deception done.

It hardly surprised me that the group of international scientists in the article that I reference had to pay a journal to publish their article.
Dr. Stephen Jones lost his tenured job as a professor at BYU over his stance on this issue.

Do you really think that the MSM wants anything to do with this?

I would suggest actually reading the article that I referenced before trying to ad hominem it, but by proxy, thrice removed.

That was so weak. If you want to criticize a journal that is fine. I understand that and encourage it, but you would be so much more convincing if you could quote and refute the actual article that I linked and referenced in this thread, rather than rely on logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and prove your point.

I am not sure who planned the 9/11 attacks with those planes crashing into the buildings. but when I heard the bombs going off and the citizens and firemen helping people get away from the bombs going off I realised it wasnt terrorist by themselves, but who could be behind this? How could this video be surpressed for so long, how come the media doesnt crack cases of corruption anymore because the police sure don't. Democracry and freedom fell in north america that day and the security agencys are the single biggest scam of all.