Michael Collins posted, at COTO Report, a video of the Victoria BC 9/11 folks giving a press conference, with engineer Werner Simbeck reading the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth press release. At the end, Werner gave an interview. We had marvelous coverage from a local mainstream cable TV station. This material has been posted in a couple blogs on 911 Blogger. I am part of the Victoria group, so have a particular interest in this.

The link to COTO Report is: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/911-architects-engineers-new-investigation-now/

The video is under attack by someone I suspect is disinfo troll (or a group), or perhaps just a psuedo-skeptic. It is someone who clearly invested considerable time in looking at our material in order to trash it.

Originally I had this information posted below as a comment at this site, but wish to elevate it to the status of a blog.

It is not clear how to tackle psuedo-skeptics or disinformation trolls, nor how to readily distinguish one from the other.

I think that there IS a disinfo troll hitting the piece. The troll has shown the ability to present black as white. You should see his point by point "rebuttals" to the A&E indications of controlled demolition (below).

It is also never clear how to respond to absolute BS:
1 - post your arguments, and keep on going until both sides are exhausted;
2 - rebut once and ignore all subsequent arguments, or;
3 - ignore completely.

What are the consequences of the various strategies? Proving anything to the troll is irrelevant - and impossible in the general case, but you are trying to make a case to a wider audience. How much wider? Well Rady Ananda over at COTO Report says (going from memory) about 100,000 hits a month.

1 - So, what is the best strategy for responding to this type of comment?
2 - How much time is it worth in responding?
3 - What can we hope to accomplish by responding?
4 - When do you call it quits?

Also, if we are to respond, it would be nice to get some experts to craft the responses (this is a hint). Again, the link is: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/911-architects-engineers-new-investigation-now/

A typical comment by the "debunker", ieaffiliates, is reproduced below:

"ieaffiliates, on February 25, 2010 at 6:36 am Said:

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

Actually, the collapse was seen by 100+ eyewitnesses as being imminent for over 2 hours. The buckling of the lower levels was clear and hardly rapid. The onset of collapse proves neither controlled or otherwise. Proof that architects cannot investigate such occurrences.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse

The “sounds” of explosions proves there was an uncontrolled fire in the building. In none of the videos that contained audio, was there any tell-tale explosions that re present in EVERY controlled demolition. So, you are either trying to say explosives were placed just before impact or just after, yet cannot explain how. Also, this would rule out incendiary devices also claimed without proof.

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

Unless you have a lateral force, gravity will ALWAYS be the greatest force. Therefore, the collapse would always be symmetrical. Basic physics also proves that architects need to consult somebody other than themselves.

By claiming the greatest path of resistance, tells me you cannot explain how there would be ANY other force to push the building any other direction than straight down. This proves ignorance in physics.

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

See #3e. Basic physics tells us that unless you have a great lateral force, you will never overcome gravity. Seeing the extensive damage to surrounding buildings, it was hardly on its own footprint. Poor choice of words.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Since there was no presence of a volcano, the term “pyroclastic” is moot. When ANY building made of concrete collapses, the energy created would easily be great enough to pulverize concrete as it is very brittle. Drop a concrete block from a 2nd floor and see the dust cloud, now do it from the 43rd floor. There was no heat involved, so the “pyro” term is proof that parroting a outdated phrase from 2001 tells us of no original thought or research.

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

Since there has NEVER been molten anything in any controlled demolition, this would prove that it couldn’t have been a controlled demolition. Unless you have ANY historical evidence of molten metal proving anything, it is also moot and proves ignorance in demolition.

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

It was not the “signature”, but the elements of incendiary products. Since the top 5 components of incendiary products are found in building construction, this proves nothing more than a poor guess and more poor science from a Professor fired for extensive history of poor science.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

The best point is the one that cannot be explained as how this proves anything. Here I suggest to you to explain to anybody how this proves anything other than an uncontrolled fire.

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

Hardly corroboration. Hardly the top CD professional in EU. He was given an edited video and no other information. Once he was told all the information,. he changed his story. I wonder why CTists are never informed of his final analysis of that it couldn’t have been a CD, since he thought it was days and weeks between the crash and collapse, not hours.

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

When you see a building with extensive damage and uncontrolled fires, it would be obvious to the event he most inexperienced of people. Those on scene were well aware that the tower would collapse as it was a matter of time when it would.

When you give an architect canned talking points and no way of explaining how they fit into a wide array of stories, they fall flat on their face. This is why you need an expert in demolition and explosives and not an architect that needs 9-11 to pay his bills.

Primary and secondary explosions would be MUCH more than an explosion on the ground floor. CD’s are done throughout the building. This is a big sign that it would have been impossible to be a CD, since CD’s just don’t occur randomly, but very precisely.

Can you find any expert in the world that can say incendiary devices are ever used in CD’s? No and you never will. "