BBC's Richard Porter - "Part of the conspiracy? (2)"

[greyl]

Judging from the comments so far, it looks like the initial frenzy has calmed a bit.
I think history will prove this episode to be just one more embarrassingly baseless angle of inquiry for the so-called Truth Movement.

Here's the portion in answer to silly questions about no longer having the original tape from BBC World of that day.

I should also mention the missing tapes. As you'll see from the details above, the absence of the BBC World tapes hasn't made much difference to our ability to look back at what happened. We have all the tapes of other BBC channels (and I now know that quite a few of you have your own copies of BBC World, which is an interesting discovery... ).

Some of you find it hard to believe we didn't keep the BBC World tapes... but we had several streams of news output running simultaneously on the day, both on radio and television as well as online and we have kept all the tapes from BBC News 24 and Radio Five Live, as well as all the BBC One bulletins. Obviously I wish we'd kept hold of the World tapes alongside all the others, but we didn't... and I don't know whether they were destroyed or mislaid. But as a result of this week's events, I have asked our archivists to get hold of copies of our original material from the organisations which do have them.

And just to be clear, the BBC policy is to keep every minute of news channel output for 90 days (in line with the Broadcasting Act in the UK). After that we are obliged to keep a representative sample - and we interpret that to mean roughly one third of all our output. We also keep a large amount of individual items (such as packaged reports or "rushes" - ie original unedited material), which we use for operational reasons - such as when we come to broadcast fresh stories on the subject. We do not lack a historical record of the event.
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

[astralroamer]

1. Porter has inflamed the controversy

Do some quick content analysis on the BBC/WTC7 controversy with Google Blog Search and Technorati, and you will discover that Richard Porter has made matters worse by failing to name the sources for the story about the collapse of WTC7. Porter continues to be evasive and dishonest in answering the key questions about the BBC's exercise in precognition.

[William Seger]

4. Only among the highly inflammable

"...evasive and dishonest..." :eyes:

[greyl]

5. Is that really your opinion?

I don't see how it possibly could be.
Maybe you could articulate what you mean a bit better.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

8. A reasonable account has been offered.

I can't help you if you believe otherwise. Do you suppose that shutting up Inside Job Cultists should be at the top of BBC priorities? I don't. No matter what the BBC does, there will be some who feign not being satisfied.

[astralroamer]

9. On the Militant Defense of the 9/11 Official Story

You didn't respond to a single point in my post, and I made quite a few. Porter has failed to address any of the key questions about the BBC controversy in a satisfactory way. He gives the strong impression that he is stonewalling.

Again: why would any progressive Democrat be much more militant about defending the official story on 9/11 than many Republicans and conservatives? What is the underlying political agenda in play? You could shed some light on that agenda by expressing your preferences on those options that were presented -- or describe some of the binary oppositions in your worldview in your own terms.

For instance, did you expend much energy in opposing the Iraq War? Did you predict before it started that it would be a monumental failure, one of the worst in American foreign policy history? Or did you support the war? Did you get it right or did you get it wrong?

I'm confident that I've got the 9/11 official story right: it is a pile of malarkey that any reasonable and curious person can see through with little effort.

[greyl]

10. What problem do you see with the section I quoted in the OP? nt

[astralroamer]

11. The truth shall set us free...

The problem with your opening post is that it doesn't take a whole view of Richard Porter's behavior and that of the BBC. One of the favorite methods of militant defenders of the 9/11 official story is to narrow down the discussion to small details that can be spinned this way or that, and to cut off the view of the big picture, of the total field and pattern of evidence.

By now Richard Porter should have produced a detailed account of "the chain of custody" from the original source for the report that WTC7 *HAD* collapsed (past tense). We need specific names, we need detailed statements from these people, and we need vigorous interviews with these people conducted by toughminded skeptics. That would be the smart thing for Porter to do if the truth were on his side. Either Porter is not very smart or the truth is not on his side. Actually, I'm betting that he's not very bright AND that he's lying. That's the human feel of the situation for those who are students of human behavior. He comes across as quite a pathetic character, a company man, the very type of mediocrity that the Internet is going to unceremoniously upend as it mows down the lazy and corrupt mainstream media.

Is there any reason why you don't want to comment on the list I posted, or on your past activism (or lack thereof) in opposing the Iraq War? If you are a Joseph Lieberman Democrat or even a neocon, that's fine. Why not give us an idea of where you are coming from politically?

I'll be happy to respond to any questions about my preferences and values in politics. Fire away.

My views on 9/11 are quite simple: the official story is ridiculous, an insult to the intelligence of any half-senitient human being. I don't know for sure what actually happened. We need a full investigation to put all the open questions to rest. Presently we have a fertile ground for all kinds of conspiracy theories that are going to increase in volume, not go away. The truth shall set us free from much of the nonsense that has sprung up around the events and aftermath of 9/11.

[CJCRANE]

13. "conspiracy theories that are going to increase in volume, not go away".

That's how I feel right now too. I think 9/11 truth could go exponential. We're really at a tipping point now.

The example I use is that of the internet itself. 10 years ago the world-wide-web had a few amateur homepages with pictures of cats on them. Now of course it's a conduit for mulit-million dollar trade and the blogosphere of alternate news and views.

[William Seger]

25. You need to include attrition in your "exponential growth"

I have found that some of my friends who were initially suckered into believing conspiracy theories by crap websites like Hunt the Boeing and crap videos like Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, and In Plane Site have gone on to look more closely at the issues -- including looking at some of the debunking sites I referred them to -- and none of them seem to be much interested in talking about it anymore.

[mhatrw]

31. Nobody likes talking to a wall. n/t

[William Seger]

34. Not if...

... "the wall" expects you to substantiate your implausible claims? Yeah, I've noticed that, too. It really cracks me up when "truthers" try to convince themselves that all their opponents are close-minded, when in fact nothing pisses them off more than actually examining the "evidence" they uncritically accept.

[mhatrw]

35. Case in point.

"Bullshit Unsupported Generalizations" for $200, Alex.

[William Seger]

37. Hypocrite

You tried to score a point by jumping in with a bullshit generalization. On the other hand, my comment about "truthers" calling all their unconvinced opponents closed-minded was not bullshit (since you had already proved it), nor does it seem to me to be an over-generalization. It appears to me to be the standard explanation that "truthers" use when their arguments fail.

[mhatrw]

42. I made no generalization. I was referring to you specifically.

And I wasn't trying to score a point. I was proffering an alternative explanation for why your friends avoid this topic with you now.

[William Seger]

44. An "alternative explanation" based on a bullshit generalization

... so you are a hypocrite. But anyway, you are wrong; I never argued about 9/11 with any of my friends. They mentioned those movies to me, I told them I didn't find them convincing and pointed them to a few websites to see why, and that was the end of it.

[greyl]

16. You haven't articulated what you see as a problem.

In regards to your other subject, since you seem to think it's important, how 'bout you flash your progressive cred?
As for me, I don't want to entertain the paranoid delusion that all progressives must believe in MIHOP or LIHOP.
What's next, we all have to have unconditional faith in Oprah?

[astralroamer]

20. The neocon investment in the OCT...

I missed your response: did you strongly oppose the Iraq War? Generally do you find yourself in agreement more with neoconservative or progressive policies?

Barack Obama or Joseph Lieberman?
Sidney Blumenthal or Robert Kagan?
Informed Comment or Little Green Footballs?
Molly Ivins or Ann Coulter?

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. GOOD POINT

I wonder what Senator Obama would make of some of the arguments put forth here. Oh wait we know.

Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the U.S. government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.

While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the "surprise" of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the U.S. should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.

Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/150207Obama.htm

[SidDithers]

66. Ernst Zundel or Simon Wiesenthal?...nt

Sid

[mhatrw]

30. But NONE of the questions have been answered.

The BBC is a NEWS organization, not a PR firm.

They are supposed to provide confirmed information, not a "reasonable" speculative explanation.

If they can't provide confirmed information even when reporting on their own actions, how are we supposed to have view their journalistic standards?

[CJCRANE]

12. I think the question of agendas/influences

is an interesting one. In the end though I think it boils down to - "what have you got to lose if the OCT is proven to be false?"

For me I have little to lose if the OCT is proven false but I don't gain much by pushing 9/11 truth either. I've simply come to my conclusions about 9/11 from merely being interested and following political developments in depth every day for the last five years.

On the flipside if my family reputation and livelihood depended on maintaining the OCT then I would probably push the OCT.

[astralroamer]

14. The neocon investment in the OCT...

There is a conspicuous political group which has an enormous stake in the official conspiracy theory on 9/11: neoconservatives associated with the PNAC, AEI, JINSA and related outfits. The neocons needed 9/11 as a justification for the Iraq War (even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11) and for their planned war against Iran. If the official story on 9/11 falls, they are going to be in hot water indeed. Not only will their plans for the Clash of Civilizations and World War III/IV fall apart, which calls for crushing all Arab and Muslim states in the Mideast with American military power, but they may come under suspicion for being involved with 9/11 in some way.

Many of the most militant supporters of the OCT have close ties to the neocons or are card-carrying neocons themselves. Many of them were ringleaders of the Iraq War and the chief political exploiters of 9/11. They have much more invested in the OCT than they can afford to lose. They are most assuredly not progressive Democrats, and they couldn't care less whether the OCT is true or false. But they need the majority of Americans to believe that it is true to accomplish their plans.

[William Seger]

27. You're revealing to much

... when you admit that to you, "truth" is a matter of political convenience and assume that anyone who disagrees with you must have similar but opposite motivations.

[William Seger]

15. When did lynch mobs become part of the progressive community?

[astralroamer]

21. The neocon investment in the OCT...

Would you care to expand on your thought here? I don't understand your point.

[William Seger]

32. That's okay

If you were capable of understanding my point, you already would.

[AZCat]

24. You're assuming that the CTers are part of the progressive community.

I think that, upon inspection, you would find that support of the "alternative" theories is not limited by political or cultural boundaries. The "lynch mob" mentality, on the other hand, has long been a part of the venemous ultra-right. Perhaps the segment of the ultra-right that supports CTs are the ones behind the "with us or against us" push coming from the "Truth Movement".

[William Seger]

26. Yup

I don't see any significant difference between the "truth movement" and the right-wingnuts who wanted to hang Clinton for blowing up the Murrah Building in OKC (among many other totally unsubstantiated accusations of murder).

[AZCat]

28. I think there are members of the "left"...

who genuinely believe (and participate) in the "truth movement" but I agree that the actions of the real nuts from the Clinton era bear a striking resemblance to the actions of several of the more prominent members of the "truth movement".

[MervinFerd]

2. Yeah, it doesn't look like a Bush resignation is imminent.

-Obviously- there were other copies of the progam out in the world.

"The BBC cover-up of their world-wide broadcast"

Sometimes things around here just don't make a lot of sense.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x145729

[CJCRANE]

6. The 90 day policy is illegal.

According to the BBC's own guidelines the tapes should be kept for several years.

Porter also originally claimed that he "lost" the tapes.

[CJCRANE]

17. Interesting comparison: news vs blogs.

I did a search on Google/News for "bbc wtc7" (1 result):
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&client=news&as_qdr=t&q=bbc%20wtc7&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn

The same search on Google/News/Blogs nets 5,168 results:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=source:bbc_news+wtc7&ie=UTF8

Hmm, I wonder why?

:shrug:

[greyl]

18. "Hmm, I wonder why?"

If you care about free speech, why not speak freely?
Just say what you mean for fuck sake.

[CJCRANE]

19. Conclusions are:

a)Google is suppressing news content (as there has apparently been coverage of this in the German media
b)or the MSM isn't interested (which is kind of strange since it's big in the blogosphere).

[astralroamer]

22. mainstream media censorship of the BBC/WTC7 story

Apparently the mainstream media are deliberately and systematically censoring the story about the BBC/WTC7 controversy because it has struck a raw nerve and has threatened the OCT. Richard Porter has taken a terrible beating on the BBC's official site, which gives an excellent indicator of public opinion on the story.

[Bryan Sacks]

23. I think the MSM are censoring it because the story exposes them

The BBC/WTC 7 story is not an anomaly - at least, not in the sense that information is ALWAYS being fed to the major electronic media, who do no bother to fact-check or corroborate accounts before rushing it onto the airwaves.

A close inspection of this case will not likely reveal the BBC being 'in' on a conspiracy; it will likely show them to be the lazy sluggards all of the MSM has become. That's a story they will avoid every time. (There is still the question of the ULTIMATE source of the information. Porter's comments don't address that.)

If we had a real media, one of the first stories they would do would be entitled: "Anaotmy of a major media news story: How does the news get produced?" But they don't do self-reflexivity, despite it being more important than most any other story they could run.

[mhatrw]

33. Major foreign media outlets have reported this.

It is at minimum worthy of a "weird news" article.

The fact that no English language corporate media outlet has so much as touched this story is extremely telling.

[astralroamer]

36. WTC7 is the key to cracking 9/11

Under any normal circumstances, the mainstream media would have reported this story if only for its novelty value. The total blackout on the story strongly suggests that WTC7 was indeed the screw-up which could bring the entire 9/11 official fairy tale crashing down.

[William Seger]

38. Really? So explain something to me

Why did "they" blow up WTC7?

[mhatrw]

39. List WTC-7's tenants. n/t

[William Seger]

40. That's supposed to be an "explanation"?

I don't suppose you could rephrase that as a logical statement, could you? :eyes:

[mhatrw]

41. I notice that you ignored my request.

Telling.

[William Seger]

43. Do you or do you not have a credible explanation for why "they" blew up WTC7?

Telling.

[mhatrw]

48. Do you or do you not have a credible explanation for why they melted down all of

WTC-7 steel other than the two pieces that showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation? If this had been a minor arson in Peoria. such an "investigation" would have been unconscionable.

What is your explanation for the high temperature sulfidation? What is your explanation for melting own all the rest of the evidence?

There are dozens of credible reasons why bringing down WTC-7 could have benefited the players in this game in terms of destroying (9/11 plotting, CIA, DOD, Secret Service, SEC, insider trading, etc.) evidence. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[William Seger]

49. "dozens of credible reasons"

Actually, there seem to be precisely zero credible reasons. What could possibly have been in the building that they couldn't just shred or truck out before the attack? Why would they expect that the collapse wouldn't leave at least some of this supposed evidence lying around for some random clean-up person to discover? That theory makes absolutely no sense.

As for the investigation, I would strongly advise you not to get your information about that (or anything else, really) from "truther" sites. (Not that you'll take my advice, of course, but don't expect me to take your characterization of it seriously.)

[mhatrw]

50. That's funny. Suddenly, "they" have the power to shred or truck out whatever

evidence they want without raising any eyebrows whatsoever on any regular, non-crisis day?

Please. You are the suddenly biggest conspiracy theorist of all. "They" are suddenly omnipotent and completely above the law whenever you find it convenient to argue as such.

Sorry, but that's not the way things work in real life. The vast majority of people in any organization, even "hush hush" intelligence, have a lot of integrity. The vast majority of the people working for the SEC, for example, aren't going to just let someone come in and destroy all their case files without putting up a huge fight.

Now, what is your explanation for the high temperature sulfidation? And what is your explanation for the destruction of all the rest of physical evidence of WTC-7 before it could analyzed? Finally, what is your explanation for the BBC's ability to predict WTC-7's collapse, the reasons for its collapse and the number of casualties -- 23 minutes before it collapsed?

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Whenever I consider you as a poster from now on, mhatrw

I will always remember the above post.

[greyl]

52. For me, it'll still be when he fabricated data in an OP of his. nt

[mhatrw]

54. For me, it's when you constantly pimp 911myths.com. n/t

[greyl]

55. Why should I care what someone who fabricates data thinks of

a great site like 911myths.com? 911myths.com does a great job of exposing fabrications and lies, and it's run by a lefty. Is that why you don't like them?

[mhatrw]

58. LOL.

Don't you mean "run by a member of the Democrat party"?

[greyl]

60. Is there a Democrat party in the UK that I'm unaware of? nt

[mhatrw]

53. Please do.

What is your point?

[Bolo Boffin]

56. You know my point exactly. n/t

[mhatrw]

59. No, I do not. Please don't be obscure.

I have no idea what secret message I am supposed to find in your previous post.

[William Seger]

63. Sounds like a "just so" story

LMAO, all of a sudden you have found some reason to shrink the conspiracy, to try to explain something that doesn't make any sense. That's gotta be a first. "Truthers" have a remarkable ability to weave whatever happened or didn't happen into their fantasies. What they don't seem to have is the ability to step back and see how fantastic (and implausible) it's become when they've finished forcing in a lot of stuff in that just doesn't fit very well. For example, do you really believe that the one and only copies of important and sensitive data such as SEC files were in that building? I don't, and neither would any other IT professional. Anyway, you're not really answering the question of why the building was blown up; you're just moving the exact same question somewhere else by assuming that there must have been "something" in the building that they wanted to destroy, and you're still avoiding giving any convincing reason for why blowing up the building was the only way to do it. (If it was data in offices other than those clandestine ops folks who were allegedly in on it, for example, why couldn't they just take whatever they wanted out of the building after the fires went out, and then claim it was destroyed in the fire?)

As for your questions about "sulfidation," that certainly sounds like a question that should be answered by someone who actually knows something about the subject. For some strange reason "truther" sites are notoriously short on any sort of expertise on anything, so I believe I'll wait and see what the actual experts say about the WTC7 collapse.

There isn't any real mystery about the BBC story. It's been well known even since that day that people on the scene were pretty sure the building would collapse well before it happened, because they could see the damn thing losing structural integrity and they could hear it making unhealthy noises. Up until recently, that was a strong point in the debunking arguments against explosives. Now, "truthers" have suddenly recognized the fact, but lo and behold, they weave it into the fantasy as, "Of course 'they' knew it was going to collapse, because 'they' were all in on the demolition plan." But it's fairly clear now that someone must have said the building "is collapsing" (which is why they were clearing the area) and somehow that got transformed into "has collapsed." This is live reporting. The BBC might have had two or three sources saying that, and they put it on the air before having time to determine that those two or three sources really traced back to one mistaken source. That happened with many other reports that same day, such as the report of a bomb at the State Department. I think you're really going to be disappointed if you think this is going to be the "smoking gun" that cracks the case. Rational people are likely to be... well, more rational about it than "truthers" seem to be. They're likely to ask themselves rational questions like, "Why the hell would the alleged plotters think they needed a 'press release' about WTC7 collapsing (which supposedly got released too early), when there were literally hundreds of media people covering the WTC and eagerly looking for anything new to report? Were the plotters afraid that nobody would notice? And if they were the ones who brought it down with explosives, wouldn't it make more sense that they would rather hope that few people noticed? WHY would they announce it?" Sorry, but it's really pretty silly.

[mhatrw]

64. Yeah, right.

Yes, I'm ASSUMING that there was something in the building that they wanted to destroy. All you asked for was a credible explanation for why WTC-7 was imploded. I supplied one of many that are perfectly credible.

In contrast, you have yet to provide any credible explanation for the unexplained high temperature sulfidation of the only two pieces of steel recovered from WTC-7. Nor have you provided any credible explanation for why all the rest of WTC-7's steel was melted down before it could be examined in any way by anyone.

BTW, government offices typically lose a lot of data in catastrophes. If you think all US government IT professionals follow all best practices for electronic backups, you obviously have no clue. Here's what happens typically. Maybe, just maybe, there is some form of offsite IT back up. MAYBE. If so, the IT guy handling this says, "Of course, I have offsite backups."

Then it turns out that the data you need is somehow irretrievable because of user error, software error, network error, permission errors, storage media degrading, storage media loss or storage media overwrite. That's how things work in the real world. You are hopelessly deluded about our federal government IT departments if you actually believe WTC-7 could go down in a heap without any government employees losing any important data.

And even if there was a perfect system for offsite IT backups, all it takes is to wipe this out is for a single conspirator get his hands that any offsite copies and erase them with a demagnetizer or otherwise corrupt these offsite back ups. Nobody, not even the IT fall guy, is going to ask any questions about this like they would if you tried to cart away or delete their onsite data and/or shred their hard copies in front of them. People simply understand and accept that back ups don't always exist. Anybody who has ever worked in an office knows that's just how it is.

Furthermore, many important SEC cases may have hinged on evidence that was not hard drive based -- tapes, DVDs, CDs or paper.

[astralroamer]

45. Who Blew Up WTC7?

I don't claim to know who blew up WTC7 or why they blew it up. Perhaps we will discover the answers to these questions once we have an honest and thorough intestigation into what really happened on 9/11.

I notice that you don't disagree with the truthful observation that the mainstream media have systematically censored any mention of the BBC/WTC7 controversy. From the behavior of the MSM -- and frantic efforts at Google to censor the video -- we may conclude with some certainly that WTC7 is a highly sensitive issue for the 9/11 conspirators, whoever they are.

Richard Porter was chewed to pieces on the BBC website by legions of BBC viewers capable of exercising their common sense on the damning evidence at hand.

[AZCat]

46. It is telling...

that prior to your comments about "an honest and thorough intestigation into what really happened on 9/11" you state several times that B#7 was blown up. How do you expect any kind of unbiased, thorough investigation when you have already come to a conclusion - isn't that what the "truth movement" continually excoriates the NIST for?

[William Seger]

47. "Systematically censored"?

Um, yeah, I disagree with that. Since I consider it to be a non-story with an obvious explanation, I can't quite get suspicious about most of the media ignoring it. You probably should be glad that they aren't using it to ridicule the "truthers" who seem to be going ape-shit over it, because the irony is that the story really proves what the "debunkers" have been saying all along: that people on the scene knew that the building was in trouble for a long time before it collapsed, and someone apparently reported that bulge that was forming as "the building is collapsing." So, either the building really was experiencing a structural failure, or the perps used some r-e-a-l-l-y - s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w explosives to bring it down. As for "frantic efforts at Google to censor the video" well, sorry, but I don't get too excited about prisonplanet's take on things. They think the CIA is behind Google, anyway.

[mhatrw]

57. At MINIMUM, it is an interesting "weird news" item that BBC's

competitors should be thrilled to exploit. Over a million people have watched the clip in less than a week. It's an extremely bizarre, popular and newsworthy example of a journalistic snafu, at minimum. Why hasn't a single English language corporate media outlet (other than the BBC "blog") so much as touched this story?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Wonkette covered it.

I believe she's corporate AND speaks English. WHOA...

[mhatrw]

62. "Wonkette" is corporate media?

That's "news" to me.

Even if this is true (and I'm not a "Wonkette" expert), who else?

[astralroamer]

67. The Systematic Censorship of the BBC/WTC7 Story

Can you point me to any American mainstream media outlet which has mentioned the BBC/WTC7 controversy?

BBC viewers have expressed an intense interest in the story -- it is a major story. In fact, they overwhelmingly subjected Richard Porter to withering contempt for his failure to answer any of the key questions about the story. Porter has been stonewalling, and quite ineffectively.

Why the stonewalling? Why the censorship of the story?

[mhatrw]

29. That is an "explanation"?

1) How did the BBC lose its own 9/11 video?

2) Where did the BBC get the information that WTC-7 had fallen long before it fell?

3) How did the BBC's source make this determination?

The BBC has published two articles about this now, neither of which have even so much as addressed any of the relevant questions.

It's no surprise that for the OCTers on this forum that this passes for responsible journalism. It follows their exact "debunking" pattern: leave all relevant questions completely unanswered while supplying a legion of unconfirmed speculations about why these obvious questions might not necessarily suggest malfeasance.

However, BBC World News is supposed to be a news organization, not a speculative debunking crew.