Skeptic Project

Remember that weirdo Twoofer who kept sending me messages a while back? Part of our exchange wound up here: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/site/hate-mail/view/83/no-subject/</p>

He wrote a blog about our exchange and, as you might imagine, is getting kudos from the tinfoil hat crowd.

https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/911-conspiracies-los-muertos/#more-16578</p>

I'm so bad, evil and brainwashed!

Muertos music taste isn't that bad

This is just the first of many parts of a critique on Los Muertos and his blog attempting to debunk “9/11 conspiracy theories”.
The above is an email critique that I sent to him, one of some 20 email exchanges we have had between ourselves.

Where have we heard that before?

Muertos: How could the conspirators have coordinated the plane strikes with the demolition charges? The only way it’s possible is if they were in communication–no evidence of this.

CT: Radio control beacon to drive plane into correct spot. You posit as if the charges that brought down the building an hour later need to be coordinated with the plane strike, which would of course cause its own damage. No evidence? What do you want, a transcript? Ask Mossad.

Translation: Evidence? I don't have that! Ask the fucking Jews! They did it!

Overall summary of blog post: I don't have any evidence, you're wrong because you're just following the mainstream, and the Jews are responsible.

Here's the article, the original author seems to have deleted the post. Luckily for us, archive.org is still here!


9/11 Conspiracies: Los Muertos
Posted on June 7, 2011 by hybridrogue1|
By William Whitten

Here I critique What Do We Know which references a Sept. 15, 2001 article by the New York Times, which doesn't tell you shit but is an emotional tear jerk journey through the rubble. What kind of forensic evidence is proven here? Zero.

I see nothing yet in 'What Do We Know' post except PR.

5: Photo of portion of Flight 175 fuselage found on top of WTC5.

>Have you been given the forensic lowdown on this piece of fuselage, the aircraft part numbers that identify it as F. 175?

"Because none of the evidence presented to support these conclusions has been discredited, we must assume that these conclusions are definitely true."

>Only if you have no reason for suspicion. Most people are clueless, and your whole game here seems to be to leave them so.

Is inconsistent with what we already know to be true-specifically, Conclusions 9 and 10 (why didn't the severe damage to the towers set off the charges prematurely?)

>Because charges are set off by electrical spark not concussion nor fire under flashpoint of charge.

Is illogical. Specifically: Why, if cutting charges were used to destroy the towers, would the conspirators use hijacked planes at all?

>The question is jejune in the extreme. The planes are a slight of hand diversionary tactic.

How could the conspirators have coordinated the plane strikes with the demolition charges? The only way it's possible is if they were in communication-no evidence of this.

>Radio control beacon to drive plane into correct spot. You posit as if the charges that brought down the building an hour later need to be coordinated with the plane strike, which would of course cause its own damage. No evidence? What do you want, a transcript? Ask Mossad.

How was it possible to have planted the charges in the first place, in such large buildings with so many workers?

>A crew of workers disguised as elevator technicians could have planted the charges. Many possibilities as the security service for the buildings themselves seems to have unseemly connections with the perps posited by the inside job faction.

How could such a conspiracy remain secret, needing so many people to carry out, and not a single one has ever come forward?

>If YOU were part of a conspiracy that had brought down these buildings and murdered close to three thousand people would YOU come forward?? WTF?? Plus, you act as if you have never heard of compartmentalization, or the chain of command and 'need to know' in the military.

Is internally inconsistent. If the terrorist scenario is an artifice, why use planes at all to achieve it?

>This has already been addressed. If the desire is to give the appearance of the official conspiracy theory, then naturally events would be staged in such a manner as to give that appearance.

That adds a layer of needless complexity, which is that much more than can go wrong. Why not simply chalk up the attack to bombs, which is much easier to achieve logistically, and which we know from the 1993 WTC truck bomb attack nearly succeeded once before?

>DRAMA, this event is meant to create a totally new *paradigm, it needed to be filmed and happen "live on TV" for full effect. *Specifically to bump the PNAC agenda into high gear, plus create a full spectrum police state domestically.

Is a result totally contrary to what could have been predicted on the site given the information at hand. (Keep in mind, Dr. Steven Jones was not there on 9/11; Peruggia and McMillan, who predicted the towers would fall before they did, were actually on the scene).

>My uncle watching on TV claims he predicted the towers would fall as well--he has absolutely no expertise what-so-ever.

Almost everyone else, firefighters, other first responders had no such thinking at all, otherwise the area would have been evacuated post haste, rather than continuing to send teams into the damaged buildings.

Is supported only by two supposedly scientific papers (the second one is the Rebuttal Document shown below), the veracity of which have been severely criticized, which reach a conclusion almost universally rejected by the scientific community.

>By the same token, the "official" account has been severely criticized by a scientific community outside of the mainstream-connected-to-mainstream go along to get along regime.

You are familiar with the concept of 'recusal' in law. Conflicted interests, etc.

You should also be familiar with the psychology of following the leader when the leadership puts so much emphasis on the agenda to be followed. Those who don't go along are ostracized. And this has certainly been the case for anything 9/11.

The dispute between Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David R. Benson, and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth is woefully out of date.

>So far, I consider your work a matter of mainstream conformist bullshit.

Quote from anticultist

The dude can't even keep his conspiracy claims coherent. One minute it's PNAC , next minute it's mossad, next minute it's the military industrial complex. This is the typical shotgun style of someone who is clutching at straws to look correct about something. Throw everything out there and hope something sticks.


Fucking useless style of argument by amateurs.

Isn't this also known as Gish Gallop?