The Reading Comprehension of Debunkers...

...never ceases to amaze me.

Youtuber "TheSkepticalIdealist" recently commented on my video "Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers" and tried to misrepresent the expertise of Tom Sullivan.


I pointed out to him that Sullivan's position at CDI was not just a photographer, but also a Powder Carrier. However, this wasn't good enough for this "skeptical idealist."


He linked me to the nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier." Apparently, he either missed this part of the document or didn't understand what he was reading:
______________________________________________________
Storage

All explosives must be stored in magazines specially made for that purpose. A magazine must be approved and have a permit to store explosives. Magazines must be under the direct supervision of a magazine keeper holding a Certificate of Fitness. Magazines must be kept locked when explosives or blasting caps are inside. Only the Blaster, Powder Carrier and Magazine Keeper may have keys to the Magazines and accept delivery of explosives at the work site.
______________________________________________________

So, Tom Sullivan was in charge of the exact aspect of handling explosives that this "idealist" said he wasn't in charge of.

It astounds me that several debunkers seem to have trouble with simple reading these days. First Joseph Nobles misunderstood what David Griscom said about the Active Thermitic Material paper. Then Pat Curley of ScrewLooseChange couldn't be bothered to read a post from 2008 before accusing someone of lying. Is reading getting too difficult for debunkers?

Now, am I implying that all debunkers can't read just because they're debunkers? Absolutely not. I would never make that sort of judgment of debunkers as a whole, because I am not a debunker, just a "rebunker." :)

NIST's Admission of Freefall - Does It Matter?

A debunker on YouTube sent me the above graphic in a message response to my song, presumably to debunk the line "Tower 7 Falls At Freefall Speed". It shows the alleged buckling of floors 7 to 14 during the collapse. Debunkers claim it proves that eight floors of freefall is possible in this case because the buckled floors wouldn't offer any significant resistance.

The amount of hoops that debunkers and skeptics have to jump through in order to get their theories to work is ridiculous. Two sections of building can't slam into each other without there being a jolt ... but the collapse of the North Tower was a special case! Look, a slight tilt! For more than 120 years, Arctic temperatures appear to correlate perfectly with solar cycles ... but the last decade was a special case! Look, warming! Pay no attention to the lying scientists! And a building can't fall at freefall ... but WTC7 was a special case! Look, CGI buckling!

I'm not convinced that even buckled floors like that would behave as if they were turned to air, as freefall implies, but let's assume they would. Note that this is a computer model, and the thing about computers is - BS in, BS out! And since this is NIST we're talking about (or my new name for them, NIMMTCD - The Nanothermite Institute of Molten Metal and Thermal Conductivity Deniers), I don't have much confidence in this model! Since the parameters of their models have never been released to the public, despite numerous FOIA requests, there's really no way of knowing whether or not this model is realistic.

NIST clearly knew admitting freefall would be a problem. In fact, in their list of changes that accompanied their final report, they never actually mentioned their revised analysis! So it's obvious they didn't want to draw attention to it.

Is freefall important? Yes. Is it our strongest evidence WTC7 was demolished? No. Freefall tells us something strange is going on, but the proof comes from the forensics. The strongest evidence in my opinion is the extreme corrosion of the steel, documented by FEMA. Which by the way, NIMMTCD completely ignored... So maybe there should be an extra C in that acronym.