A 9/11 Debunker is a person that will defend the official story at any cost. I have met my fair share of them over the years and I have learned many of their tactics. I know what a debunker is going to say before they say it and I have a rebuttal for everything.


This is a very resourceful guide on learning how to debunk the debunkers.




Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face Up to Reality
9 11 Debunking for Dummies
The Popular Mechanics 9/11 IQ Test


Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory
9/11 The Myth and The Reality – David Ray Griffin
Debunking 9/11 Debunking – Let’s Get Empirical – Pt.1 of 9
115 lies and omissions from the 9/11 report.

The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie


“Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” Actually Validates Them
9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert


9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage – 20/07/2009
9/11 Truth Debate – Richard Gage vs. Ron Craig
We have all seen Richard Gage do this experiment with Cardboard boxes. Many people knock him for it but I praise him for trying to explain it to the American idiots that just don’t get it.



9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
How to Foil Your Own Terror Plot
NIST 9/11 – Disclosure Might “Jeopardize Public Safety”
Shut Up, Conspiracy Theorist!!!


Typical SHILL Post

“What Truthers Do:
1) Deceive – Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into “Strawman” issues that
are easily knocked down.
2) Dodge – Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that they can not explain.
3) Deny – Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the
9/11 argument.
4) Discredit – Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of the
9/11 experts.
5) Repeat – Repeat the same conspiracy theories and regurgitated talking points.
6) Pretend – Pretend they understand physics, are structural engineers, architects
and whatever else so others believe them.
7) Get mad – Get mad at those who don’t believe their delusions and resort to calling them shills and controlled operatives.”
The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies, Part One

“There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of an internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of an ‘uncontrolled forum.’”

Part 2: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/29/the-gentlepersons-guide-to-forum-spies-part-two/
Part 3: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/31/the-gentlepersons-guide-to-forum-spies-part-three-2/
Part 4: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/08/09/the-gentlepersons-guide-to-forum-spies-part-four/
Tactics of DebunkTards 101:

1: Ignoring all articles, videos, news reports posted, and simply relying on character assassination to avoid talking about them.
2: If they know they will inevitably be proved wrong, they will avoid answering any questions you ask, and just call you a ‘jew hater’
3: They refuse to discuss ANYTHING that wasn’t talked about by popular mechanics.
4: They rely on their HUGE LACK of knowledge about physics, to try and use words they dont know the meanings of, and then hope that their fellow DebunkTards will defend them
5: If proven to be completely ignorant, they will simply stop responding, and go to another thread!
6: They will post interviews with known gatekeepers, usually from fox news or other mainstream articles, which say that ‘9/11 truthers are anti american”
7: They will say that bloody firemen screaming about bombs in the lobby murdering innocent people is just a ‘nutjob who was paid by the government to say lies”
8: They will use this sentence to avoid answering a question…”God I love when truthers do __________ and ________, they are sooo dumb!”
9: They know how to copy and paste any site from google with the terms 9/11 and debunked in the title…. ie http://www.debunking911.com



A List Of Fallacious Arguments

“A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, “How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?” The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.”


What is a logical fallacy?

“A “fallacy” is a mistake, and a “logical” fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There
are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance,
factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as “fallacies”. However, the Fallacy Files
is specifically concerned, not with factual errors, but with logical ones.

In logic, the term “fallacy” is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

“Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy.”
“Your argument is a fallacy.”
In 1, what is called a “fallacy” is a type of argument, so that a “fallacy” in this
sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said
to be a “fallacy”, so that in this sense a “fallacy” is an argument which uses bad

Correlation does not equal Causation

What is the difference between causation and correlation?

One of the most common errors we find in the press is the confusion between correlation and causation in scientific and health-related studies. In theory, these are easy to distinguish — an action or occurrence can cause another (such as smoking causes lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (such as smoking is correlated with alcoholism). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated. But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other, even if it seems to make sense.

“Correlation does not imply causation” (related to “ignoring a common cause” and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint). The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.”


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual
position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that
position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a
position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as
well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Example of a Straw Man:

Prof. Jones: “The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000.”
Prof. Smith: “What are we going to do?”
Prof. Brown: “I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions.
That would take care of it.”
Prof. Jones: “We could reduce our scheduled raises instead.”
Prof. Brown: ” I can’t understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones.”


Argumentum Ad Hominem

“Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the
character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an
argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of
the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.”

Ad Hominem

An Ad-Hominem is NOT an argument. It’s a personal attack.


What is Occam’s Razor?

“when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the
one that is simpler is the better.”
“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more
complicated explanations.”
“If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, pick the simplest.”
“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”

Occam’s Razor does not follow the scientific approach and believes demonstrations and
Experiments are not necessary.
Example of Occams Razor:
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory


Fallacy: Red Herring
“Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is
actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of
discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.”


‎”Psychological operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. . Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it. A proven winner in combat and peacetime, PSYOP is one of the oldest weapons in the arsenal of man. It is an important force protector/combat multiplier and a non-lethal weapons system. Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations.”

Psychological Operations/Warfare


The Delphi method is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.

The Delphi Technique — What Is It?

Delphi Technique Diffusal TNSRADIO

Resisting the Delphi Technique




“Gaslighting is a tactic of behavior in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works a lot better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting. It is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders.”

Gaslighting: Know It and Identify It to Protect Yourself



This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time. Dissonance increases with:

The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.
The theory of cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Confronting Cognitive Dissonance – The Eyeopener
A Lesson In Cognitive Dissonance



1. Thou shall not attack the person’s character, but the argument. (Ad hominem)
2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s arguments in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw man fallacy)
3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty generalization)
4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the question)
5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False cause)
6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False dichotomy)
7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (Ad ignorantum)
8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)
9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when it has no logical connection. (Non sequitur)
10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. (Bandwagon fallacy)


“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.”
~ J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director from 1924 – 1972 (The Elks Magazine August 1956)

‎”One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.”
– E. Martin Schotz, “History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy”

“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association.”
– Michael Ruppert, “Crossing the Rubicon,” p. 184

“There’s fool’s gold because there’s real gold.”
– 13th-century Persian poet Rumi

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
– Nietzsche

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
– Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

“Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.”
– Peter Dale Scott

“It’s not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true.”
– Henry Kissinger (famous American war criminal)

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”
– Bertrand Russell

“You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin (1809-1882) 1871

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
— Voltaire

‎”Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
– Buddha

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
– Vladimir Lenin



Subject: A dead horse
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that:

“When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, best strategy is to dismount ” .

However, in government, more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse’s performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse’s performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
13 Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

Moral of this: You can lead a Horse to water but you can’t make it drink and you can’t lead a dead horse anywhere.

  1. Christopher A. Brown

    Good page Ken Doc. I got an email from “truthandshadows” who has not let me post there yet. Censors and blocks everything I try to post. You’ve definitely been around the web arguing for truth as I can see the complete list of psycops, dephi, occams technique well show. So good on you for calling that which walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, a duck.

    No sure if you know about my site, as I’ve never heard of you, but here it is.


    Basically all fact well supported with independently verified evidence. One of the few sites that has the support of a Ph.D, Dr. Ron Larsen, physics, found my page and called every other day for a couple of months and finally asked me to co host his liberty calling web radio show. He described the demo model as the only technically detailed and feasible description of how the WTC event was done in existence.

    Be safe, be well!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: