Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links

Debunking 9/11 FAQ


Q: Why do you use the term "debunking" in your name. Doesn't that prove you already think you're right?
A: I use the term "Debunking" because I see evidence which points to conspiracy "Bunk" and I "Debunk" it. I find it Ironic that people in the "Truth" movement would ask this.

Q: What is Debunking 9/11's e-mail address?
A: debunk911@hotmail.com Please read the FAQ before sending any Email. All E-mail which is inflammatory or mindless will go straight to the junk folder. A select few will have the privilege of being added to my "Conspiracy Theorists hall of Fame".

Q: Why do you hide your identity?
A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.

Apparently this is evidence to conspiracy theorists that I'm a "government shill". I guess a massive conspiracy to murder 3000 people is easier to carry out than it would be for the government to create a fake id on a web site. (Incredible...)


Someone at Alex Jones's 'InfoWars' has created a rather unorthodox way of telling who is a paid government shill.

"debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments."

His argument boils down to he thinks:

  • My MS FrontPage skills are professional grade.
  • I debunk more than he thinks I should.
  • My web site color is close to PNAC's banner.

I'm happy to see the improvements I've made have impressed this conspiracy theorist to the point he thinks I must be getting a chunk of the defense budget. Because the last time my site was featured on Alex Jones' InfoWars they weren't as kind...

A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.

In even more twisted logic, the writer recently writes...

My accusation at the beginning of the week that the debunking9/11.com website was a neoconservative-inspired site dedicated to preventing the revelation of evidence showing that the events of 9/11 were not as the US government had said has provoked a flurry of mostly fringe lunatic comments supporting the now increasingly discredited government story. In doing so, however, the neoconservatives and their supporters have revealed that, indeed, the site is nothing more than a neoconservative propaganda site designed specifically to feed the paranoia of those that fear the truth of what their government and allies are able to do in the pursuit of power, greed and hegemony.

Basically, if you think his argument is as empty and absurd as I do then you must be a Neo-Con.

Q: Who funds your site? Who pays you to do this? Are you paid by the government?
A: Anyone making the median income in America can easily afford to create a web site. Some web hosts charge as low as 4 dollars a month.
No one "Funds" me and no one should need to fund conspiracy sites. I shouldn't have to shell out even 4 dollars a year, much less 4 dollars a month to expose these groups misinformation but I gladly do it. The only reason for those web sites to ask who funds me is to suggest I'm a government shill. That way you won't read any further. If you think I'm a government shill because I paid for this web site then I'm not sure you have the capacity to understand what's on it anyway.

The question the conspiracy leaders DON'T want you to ask is why they need donations and book sales at all? Are we supposed to believe these "Truth seekers" can't afford 4 dollars a month between them?  Below is a list of "Webmasters" and other computer/web site professionals who are members in Scholars for Truth.

Bill Carlson (AM) Webmaster
Karel Donk (AM) Multimedia and Web Design
Wade Inganamort (AM) Writer, Webmaster
Eric Martineau (AM) VP of Web Operations
Peter Meyer (AM) Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of web sites
David A. Nolan (AM) Writing, Research, Web Development
Alfons Olszewski (AM) Webmaster
Keith Shannon (AM) Web design, Hardware/software troubleshooting
Nuzi Haneef (SM) Doctoral Student, Computer Science, George Washington University, Washington DC, "Grassroots Contact" for website
Brian Mecham (SM) Business, Salt Lake Community College, Utah, Webmaster

It's obvious they don't need to pay outside help to create their sites. Neither do I, which is why you wont find a single donation, book or DVD sale icon on my site. It's hard to find a single page on Alex Jones web sites which doesn't ask for money in some way or another. He also asked for donations after accusing Clinton of killing children in Waco. $93,000 dollars (That we know of) went to recreating the Waco compound. He was a proud republican back then, running for Republican House of Representatives. He was as successful in that endeavor as he was on the radio back then. 9/11 seems to be his new piggy bank.

So the question is, who funds the major conspiracy sites? Republican dirty tricks who want liberals to hate the government as much as they do? The book publishers? Conservative radio stations? The people who give donations? And how much goes into their pockets?

Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?
A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site? Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorists clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?

In a somewhat whiney attack, conspiracy theorists have come to the conclusion that not putting an "s" at the end of Conspiracy theorists is some sort of evidence of Controlled Demolition. This and other attacks on my grammar are obviously an attempt at character assassination. If they paint me as less than "scholarly" then maybe people won't look at the evidence in the same way. Unfortunately they know this type of tactic works to some extent. Ironically though, character assassination is one of the Bush administration's favorite tactics. It works for them, too. Remember Richard Clarke and Scott Ritter? They haven't been shown to be wrong but some Republicans still think that Scott Ritter was a pedophile and Richard Clarke made everything up just because he wanted to sell books. I'm in good company.

"how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?"

How, he asks, in this appeal to authority? Jones makes it easy. Even a grammatically challenged individual such as myself can find fault with his blatant misrepresentations. Why, if I find them so easily, aren't the "scholars" finding them easily? And why can't the writer of the hit piece tell the large object Jones calls molten metal is actually a collection of impacted, (pancaked) concrete floors. Doesn't the legible type still imbedded in the concrete prove to him it's not molten metal?

Basically, if you feel the towers were blown up because I show poor grammar and spelling, then you make a better spelling cop than you do a Civil Engineer. Barney Fife has nothing on you.

This is the height of logical fallacy. [Another criticism from this conspiracy theorist is that I use the term  "Logical Fallacy". It seems others have used the term to describe their logic and that indicates to them that I'm in cahoots with them.. Maybe I use it because the term fits? No new conspiracy necessary.]  I don't debate, therefore the columns weren't pulled in over time??? [I don't show good grammar and spelling so the columns weren't pulled in over time? I use the term "logical fallacy" so maybe the columns weren't pulled in over time?] Is that the logic? It can't be that I don't feel comfortable in a public forum? It can't be that I'm not a good public speaker... (As you can see, I don't even write very well but at least I can go back and correct mistakes) [The conspiracy theorists logical errors will always be there. I've already corrected my grammar and spelling.]

I find it interesting that for some reason the people in the "truth" movement need an audience to cheer them on in order to find the truth. [I'm sure the debate would be about my grammar and not the evidence I present.]  I prefer that people read the sites without interruption and make up their own minds. This is just more evidence to me that the "truth" movement is all politics. [Especially the recent character assassination in the place of facts.] They need a person to person debate as if this was a political race. I say put it up on your web sites and shut up about debates. [and spelling] Because when conspiracy theorists debate the facts, they lose.

This issue is much like the evolution/creation debate in that I can mirror the reasons why I chose not to debate conspiracy theorists.

  1. The proper venue for debating scientific issues is at science conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In such a venue, the claims can be checked by anyone at their leisure. Conspiracy Theorists are unwilling to debate there.
  2. Public debates are usually set up so that the winners are determined by public speaking ability, not by quality of material.
  3. Debate formats, both spoken and written, usually do not allow space for sufficient examination of points. A common tactic used by some prominent conspiracy theorists is to rattle off dozens of bits of misinformation in rapid succession. It is impossible for the responder to address each in the time or space allotted.
  4. Notwithstanding the above points, there have been several debates, both live and online. I don't need to add myself to the list.

Q: Why don't you have anything on the Pentagon?
A: Because this idea is so far out there that even the conspiracy sites are debunking it. I offer links which go into that issue in detail. I'm more interested in the stories the conspiracy theorists are in agreement with.

Q: I have information you can use on your site. Can I contribute?
A: Please feel free to send me any photos, videos and information you think I can use on this site. We are especially looking for photos of the south side of building 7 on 9/11 or photos of melted, falling liquid metals on or after 9/11. Keep in mind I have already seen all the major conspiracy theorists web sites. If I use it I will give you credit but only if you wish.

Q: Are you a republican/Neo-con?
A: I am a flaming liberal and proud of it.


Further proof that some conspiracy theorists are lying is found in this quote from a prominent conspiracy theorist site...

The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

No evidence whatsoever is shown for this conclusion other than I said I'm a liberal. Of course, they have to say I'm a shill of some kind. Again, if I'm a "gatekeeper" it doesn't change the facts. The only reason to bring this up is character assassination. At the same time this "Truth Seeker" is saying that I show poor grammar. (Something I agree with) What are these so called "Left GateKeepers" doing putting up web sites with poor grammar? THIS is what shows me the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the leaders of this movement. There is no sign of critical thinking here. It's nowhere to be found. You would think the people they say are "Left Gatekeepers" have the money to find a better writer. Talk about contradiction? No irony here... They can't even attack my character without turning it around on themselves. I suspect they'll put up some pretty graphic connecting me to some corporation now, without any evidence. Yet, the graphics connecting conspiracy theorists to conspiracy theory book sales, new conspiracy theorists radio listeners, libertarian, green party, democrat candidate donations and money from web links will have to come some other day.

Why did this conspiracy theorist write that piece? I suspect they know I'm going to trash most of the mindless messages. I can think of two reasons, one is to keep their flocks minds on something other than thinking about the evidence. If they're busy typing e-mails to me they aren't reading my site. The second reason is to keep their radio listeners hyped and motivated. Anyway, I actually received some good responses from the article. It also provided me an opportunity to clean up the site. So in that respect I guess I should say, thanks!

Q: Why do you do this?
A: There are many reasons.

  • In a free society you need to hear all sides of an issue. I am but one of a few giving that other side.
  • One of the sad things I've uncovered are the large number of people using this tragedy for religious, political and monetary gain. These same people say the families of the victims deserve the truth. I agree.

Q: Why do you bother? You aren't going to change anyone's mind.
A: Not everyone is locked to a belief. Some people are honestly trying to make up their mind and need to hear what the other side has to say.

Q: Most of your arguments seem to be straw men. Why do you attack arguments I'm not making?
A: There are arguments some web sites make which others do not. Just because you haven't seen the argument on your favorite conspiracy site doesn't mean there aren't those who make it. (Read: logical fallacy)  If the topic doesn't apply to you, then just skip it and go on to the next.

Q: Why don't you have a message board or blog to argue your case? Does that mean you're scared to debate the issues?
A: This question was asked of me as if not having one means the facts change. The evidence is strong for the perimeter columns being pulled in over time. The evidence for that is on this site whether I have a forum or not. I debate this issue on forums and don't feel the need to add yet another forum just to appeal to someone's excuse for denying the events on 9/11. (Is there a sillier reason to hold on to some ones misguided beliefs?)

Q: Why don't you have anything on all the other 'coincidences' which happened that day? Doesn't that prove the government was involved?
A: In every major event, there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorists live for this. They create a web of logical fallacies which are not based on research, logic or evidence. Their assumptions are based on a string of misinformation hand picked for mass consumption. There are others dealing with those stories which I have on the links page. It's a logical fallacy to suggest that just because I don't care to deal with these myths that they must be true. For instance, the evidence for explosives or incendiaries doesn't increase with the time Bush spent in the classroom that day. That's just absurd. Yet many use his time in the classroom as some sort of proof. It may only prove how incompetent the Bush administration was that historic day.

Q: How can you believe the official story? Don't you see the inconsistencies?
A: Much of the evidence on this site did NOT come from any official anything. I came to my conclusions after doing my own original research into conspiracy theory claims. Some of the original research includes:

1. Orio Palmer's "Two Lines" quote distorted by conspiracy theorists debunked
2. "First time in history" debunk
3. NIST and Pancaking
4. Much of the top sections fell into the bottom sections and on the floors.
5. Most of the firemen quotes on building 7 which show the building was far worse than Conspiracy Theorists say.
6. WTC 7 fell to the south
7. Most of the media and firefighters knew building 7 was going to collapse from the fires. It was no secret demolition
8. Videos show buildings did not fall at freefall.
9. Aluminum Airliners melt in fires without hitting buildings.
10. Molten Steel explained
11. So called Squibs on 7 are really damaged panels
12. So called molten metal pool is really evidence of pancaking
13. Objects flung away from collapse said to be steel is actually aluminum.
14. Massive conspiracy needed
15. Zogby poll

Q: Why do you spend so much time lambasting conspiracy theorists instead of pointing out government incompetence? Doesn't this mean you are helping war criminals? Aren't you enabling the very government you say is incompetent?
A: First of all, what am I doing if I'm not blaming government (The evidence suggests leadership) incompetence? If the government wasn't incompetent then how did the terrorist manage to pull this off? It's well known there were actions and inactions which led to 9/11 without a shadowy government involved. For me to add yet another site dealing with this when there are already thousands of sites dealing with this is absurd. And for what? To take away the absurd argument: I can prove conspiracy theorists wrong = I must be helping the government? That seems to be the almost Rovian like spin of the question.

Yes, that is spin worthy of Karl Rove. Because if anyone is helping the government get away with incompetence it's the conspiracy theorists. How is my pointing out conspiracy theorists almost comical attempt at quote and photo mining not preventing a "Poisoned Well" ? We already see the conflation by conservative talk show hosts to call any investigation into 9/11 "Liberal Conspiracy theories". This, even when some of the leaders of the conspiracy movement are conservative. They get to pollute the conversation on investigations as they create fear around the government and enable others to label liberals kooks.

I only attack the leaders of the conspiracy movement after I've shown how absurd their arguments are. Unlike the leaders of the conspiracy theorists who attack me with quote mining and baseless suggestions of me being "In on it".

Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower |
Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery

What's new

WTC 7 explained by Structure Magazine

New Quick Answers and links page

New Readers E-mails page.

New Paper on towers collapse.

The real conspiracy, the rush to war and the evidence for an investigation

Italian debunker uncovers more possibilities for molten flow

In Defense of Rosie. Why Rosie shouldn't be fired from 'The View'

Evidence of conspiracy! The truth about the Death Star