AlienScientist Homepage
  AS YouTube Channel technology technology chemistry
  AS YouTube Channel technology technology chemistry

A Summary of 9/11 Myths and the best debunking evidence

This section is dedicated to all the lies being spread about 9/11. I would first like to give my thanks to the REAL 9/11 Debunkers out there who have assisted me in debunking the disinformation and getting straight to the core facts of 9/11. I would not be the fact and evidence driven power truth I am today if it weren't for you guys! So Thanks for helping to exposing the truth, even if it wasn't the truth you thought you were exposing when you first got into this...

Once completed, this will be a collection of fraudulent tactics, and true debunking with regard to 9/11. This is an attempt to peel away the many layers of deception and reveal the hard truth about the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.

The List

The list you will find below are people, organizations, and theories that I have personally taken on and debunked in the past. Though there are undoubtedly many many more ideas out there that have been debunked already, this is a summary of the ones I have chosen to speak out against because they reach the largest number of peoeple and insert faulty ideas into their psyche which cause the most amount of damage collectively to the truth about 9/11 and The Movement to uncover this truth.

These are the most despicable, worst of the worst type of liars. Enjoy as I show you how easy it is to rip them apart.

NIST: A Sham Asunder

NIST's Final Report for WTC 7 only concludes how the collapse COULD have initiated

On April 11th, 2007, family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice filed a petition with NIST demanding that it correct its erroneous methods and findings.

On September 27th, NIST finally replied.

While the reply is mainly bogus, and the filers of the petition intend to appeal the decision of NIST not to correct the many fatal errors in its reports, attorney James Gourley (who drafted the petition) has pointed out one interesting statement. Specifically, NIST says in its reply:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

Why the NIST Report is False

These two videos (one made by Kevin Ryan the other by myself) explain several excellent reasons to doubt the scientific validity of the NIST Report on WTC 7:

Additional Sources of info:

NIST Report on WTC 7 dissected by Engineers: PDF - Jonathan Cole PE,

Shear Studs: A Case Study:

The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation? by Eric Douglas, Architect

Popular Mechanics vs. Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Popular Mechanics Magazine was bought out and merged with Hearst Corporation a few months before this article was written, drawing strong suspicion that "yellow journalism" influence could have motivated the propaganda hit piece. The following analysis will point out all the distortions, straw man arguments, and lies in the Popular Mechanics 9/11 Analysis

Popular Mechanics also released a book in late 2005 claiming to debunk many of the "conspiracy theories" surrounding 9/11. But did Popular Mechanics actually "debunk" any of these claims?

A shrewd examination of the arguments made by Popular Mechanics in their article reveals the various deceptions made in this propaganda "hit piece".

An updated version of the Popular Mechanics book was released to include more straw man arguments, logical fallacies, distortions, propaganda, and lies. Now they are claiming that all the steel was "meticulously analyzed" by NIST at a Gathersburg Maryland site, yet NIST has never released any forensic chemical testing of physical debris samples. Not one, ever! To anyone who has read this book and believes the lies inside of it, try doing the homework on each of the topics and points mentioned by Popular Mechanics.

Here is one comprehensive over-view that I particularly liked: Just Read Adam Taylor's step-by-step Debunking of Popular Mechanics on

David Ray Griffin was the first to publish a comprehensive response to the Popular Mechanics article, cleverly titled "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". This book contains 63 pages of sources at the end and is a catalogued library of 9/11 evidence that destroys the credibility of the Popular Mechanics Article. The entire first half of the book actually deals with just the NORAD issue and the questions concerning the ongoing war games, and "Stand Down" orders going over every conceivable possibility based on the assumptions made in the Pop Mech. article about what could have really happened that day.

Jim Miegs of Popular Mechanics has said several times that thermite can't be used in demolitions even calling the idea "ridiculous" on Fox News.

Then we found something even MORE "ridiculous", in an issue of Popular Mechanics from Nov 1935 - Page 657:

Skyride Tower Felled by Melting Steel Legs

Intense heat was employed by wrecking engineers in toppling the 3,000,000-pound east tower of the “Skyride,” a major attraction of Chicago's Century of Progress. Huge “overshoes” in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide. When fired by electricity the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash. A microphone attached to the tip of the tower broadcast the noise of the fall by radio, and the spectacle was viewed by a crowd estimated at more than 100,000. The west tower had been wrecked several weeks earlier with dynamite. The 628-foot twin towers, the cables which supported the cars passing between them and the elevators cost more than $1,750,000 to erect.

Popular Mechanics from Nov 1935 - Page 657

So why is Jim Miegs making up lies about thermite, and not addressing real evidence and arguments?

Why does Jim Miegs claim that the idea of using thermite in a demolition is "ridiculous", when It's listed on Page 61 of the CIA's Explosives for Sabotage training Manual

Michael Shermer, Scientific American, & Farenheit 2777

In May 2005 Skeptic Magazine founder Michael Shermer wrote a shameful article where he ignored the Evidence of Melted Steel on 9/11 (such as Appendix C of the FEMA Report, and the RJ Lee Group Dust Study, or Many, many, other lines of inquiry) In addition to ignoring critical evidence and claiming it doesn't exist Michael shermer attempts isolate anyone who questions the official Government theory of 9/11, label them a "conspiracy theorist" and immediately associate their beliefs with those of Holocause Deniers, and Creationists...

"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry." - Michael Shermer in his "debunking" article.

Of course at the heart of all "Pseduo-skeptical" thinking is an ignorance of facts and evidence as seen in the next statement made in bold headlines across the article...

"No melted steel, no collapsed towers."

Michael Shermer ought to be ashamed of himself to lie like this and of his failure at genuine skepticism. What I see here is an attempted infiltration of the skeptics movement, in order to convince them that they ought to be skeptical of people who question the Government, rather then be genuinely skeptical of what the Government says... This type of thinking is not only faulty but also dangerous. I do think it's entertaining to see how many "skeptics" actually fall for this and how some will even attempt to defend Shermer! When his statements are demonstrated to be FALSE based on scientific evidence of melted steel with sulfur in it, which lowers the melting point of steel. Fortunately, after reviewing the evidence for themselves, I can usually turn most of them around. :)

As long as Michael Shermer and other pseudo-skeptics attempt to use logical fallacies, stereotypes, and outright lies (ignoring evidence of molten metal) to win their side of the argument, my job debunking them will continue to be as easy as a fact check.

Tell Shermer to re-write his article to include mention of the Sulfide Eutectics found on samples of WTC 7 steel!

Appendix C of the FEMA Report (first and last page)

Michael Shermer's claims of "No Melted Steel" are 100% wrong based on hard scientific evidence from the only known metallurgical analysis of steel from WTC 7.

Why so called "Skeptics" have not raised more questions about this rather serious omission by Michael Shermer and Scientific American, I don't know...

Apparently a few people have written some thorough debunking of the lies in Michael Shermer's Article and one guy, a concerned family member, even confronted him on it...

Nat Geo, Myth Busters, and BBC vs. Thermite

All these people use the same faulty argument, that just because THEY were "too stupid" to figure out how to cut steel using thermite, that this also means that no one ELSE could possibly do it either... Another Brit named Myles Powers has released some pseudo-science-skeptic videos of his own attempting to mimick this same fraudulent argument.

This video proves all of them WRONG using science and the scientific method:

Using just a fraction of the amount of thermite used by National Geographic on their "debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories" special, Jonathan Cole an Engineer from AE911truth, (and a good personal friend of mine) was able to cut a vertically mounted steel column all the way through causing structural failure. Using experiments to prove a given hypothesis is the most important part of the scientific method.

When debunkers first began using this argument in forums and in mainstream propaganda hit pieces, I wrote a letter to my friend Jon Cole where I argued it ought to be easy to disprove this claim with a backyard experiment and suggested that we try to get someone to do this experiment. He happily volunteered for the job, I helped give him some pointers on video cameras and video editing, and the result was this film.

But the "debunkers" were obviously not done with their lies, manipulations, and distortions...

BBC, et al claiming Sulfur came from "dry-wall gypsum"

When arguments over evidence of melted steel/iron at the WTC and the Sulfide Eutectic formations observed in samples of WTC Steel analyzed chemically in Appendix C of the FEMA Report and in the iron rich microspheres found by Dr. Steven Jones which resembled reacted and exploded thermate (which is thermite with Sulfur added to melt through steel faster), one of the original debunking arguments that appeared was claiming that the Sulfur came from dry wall gypsum heated in a fire.

Being a physicist and having some basic knowledge of material science, I knew that this argument was false and that we could easily prove it false with a simple experiment.

Jonathan Cole even credits me at the end of this video for giving him the idea...

As a result of this video and the experiment Dr. Greening (one of the experts quoted by the BBC) was forced to retract his statements regarding his hypothesis that Gypsum could have been a potential source of the Sulfur. Of course the BBC Hit Piece, quotes Greening as if the dry-wall gypsum were the end-all say-all ONLY source of the mysterious Sulfur... But thanks to science we now know this hypothesis falls flat on its face.

So where did the sulfur come from in these sulfide eutectics on the WTC Steel and in the iron rich microsphere spectrographs?

Attempted Association with Crack-Pot - Easy to Disprove Theories

The "Straw Man" Technique is a favorite of people who can't win real arguments over facts and instead will use a demonstrably false claim, present it as the real claim, and then (using the fallacy of sweeping generalization) claim that this debunks ALL other conspiracy theories out there.

Directed Energy Weapons Usage

Certain groups out there have attempted to infiltrate the 9/11 Truth Movement and redirect it's members away from the evidence of thermate, nanothermite, and explosives and steer them in the direction of another, less probably demolition hypothesis. These groups forward a variety of false claims, for example, claiming that all the steel from the WTC was "vaporized" completely, and other such nonsense. They have made claims that Steven Jones worked to sabotage "Cold Fusion", and attempted character assassinations of anyone who talks about the thermite evidence, or speaks out against the DEW hypothesis. I recently had my YouTube Channel shut down as the result of one of these people filing a fraudulent DMCA notice against my videos debunking Dr. Judy Wood and this theory.

The main argument which completely debunks the DEW hypothesis is: ENERGY. In order to get around this argument, Judy Wood has attempted to harp on and hijack the "Free Energy" conspiracy believers, using them as a crutch to rest her broken theory on. I have spoken to sceintists who were directly involved in the Star Wars SDI program, and the biggest problem they had with these DEWs, X-Ray Laser weapons, and the like... was the MASSIVE POWER required to run them! The problem was less about how to build a laser that big, but how to build the system to store and deliver that energy that would be required to operate it.

A more thorough and complete debunking of Judy Wood can be found here on my "debunk bin" page.

I have no reason to entertain Dr. Judy Wood's DEW hypothesis any further without a more concise description of what exactly she is suggesting was used, how it works mechanically, and the proof of her "Free Energy" technology which powers this thing.

The fact that I have been attacked so violently and had dirty tactics such as Fraudulent DMCA violationgs being filed against my YouTube Channel for using a picture of her book in my video debunking her... This type of response SHOWS that these people have no scientific basis or legitimacy for their argument, or else they would post a video or article debunking me (something much more technical and to the point at hand, than the attempted character assassinations you can find about my work written by people like Andrew Johnson of ""... what a joke.

I will debate these fools anywhere, any time they like. Just email me the request!

I am ready and more than Willing to Debate ANY of the sources I have debunked here on this page in a Live Debate!

Please Email me for further inquiry or radio/tv interview requests.