Arguments to debunk 9-11 conspiracy

[The Big I]

I personally like to point out that demolishing a building in a controlled way requires making it completely uninhabitable for months, smashing holes in walls, running detonator cables over floors, etc.

It's not as simple as placing a big bomb somewhere. You have to wrap explosives around support beams to cut them, for example. A big bomb would work to blow the place up, but not for the sort of carefully controlled demolition CTs think it was.

And of course anybody who thinks the Evil Conspiracy actually needed to risk exposing itself in order to blow up the towers is an idiot. It was completely unnecessary: the airplanes smashing into them were spectacular enough to justify a war. A collapse was just a bonus.

Of course, at this point they start to outright invent stories about a huge gold vault which disappeared from the Towers and nobody noticed! (except for the conspiracy theorists, of course, who notice all sorts of things which aren't there, like cables holding up the astronauts)

I've brought the point up about when and how they could insert the explosives with people in the building. Their comeback was apparently there was a full scale evacuation drill a couple of weeks before 911 and around the same time they withdrew the bomb sniffing dogs. After I fell off my chair laughing at this response I found it difficult to respond as there is a ban on calling people fucken idiots.

[The Big I]

Here you this is what they say about the NIST WTC # 7 report.

Debunking NIST�s Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel



StumbleUponGeorge Washington�s Blog
Friday, Aug 22, 2008

Symmetrical Collapse

NIST lamely tried to explain the symmetrically collapse as follows:

WTC 7�s collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

NIST can�t have it both ways. If the exterior frame was so stiff and strong, then it should have stopped the collapse, or - at the very least - we would have seen a bowing effect where tremendous opposing forces were battling each other for dominance in determining the direction of the fall.

In real life, the thick structural beams and �stiff [and strong]� exterior frame used in the building should have quickly stopped any partial collapse, unless the support columns were all blown. At the very worst, we should see a 1 or 2 floor partial collapse.
NIST said that WTC 7 fell at 40% slower than freefall speed. But it collapsed alot faster than it would have if the structural supports were not all blown away at the same instant. 40% slower isn�t very impressive � that�s like arguing that a rock falling through concrete 40% slower than a rock falling through the air is perfectly normal.

Again, why did the building collapse at all, given that the thick structural beams should have quickly stopped any partial collapse?

And what about the pools of molten metal at ground zero for months? And why was the at and under the ground at the site of WTC 7 as hot as the ground under WTC 1 and 2?

And the New York Times wrote that partly EVAPORATED steel beams were found at WTC 7. But normal office and diesel fires are not NEARLY hot enough to evaporate steel. Hydrocarbon fires fueled by diesel (which was apparently stored at WTC 7) and normal office materials cannot evaporate steel. Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.
And why didn�t NIST address what these experts say?:

The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world�s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. �I wish that there would be a peer review of this,� he said, referring to the NIST investigation. �I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they�ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. � I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here).
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
�Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition�

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
�Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds� ? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
�WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?�

A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed �does not match the available facts� and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

[PeZook]

I've brought the point up about when and how they could insert the explosives with people in the building. Their comeback was apparently there was a full scale evacuation drill a couple of weeks before 911 and around the same time they withdrew the bomb sniffing dogs. After I fell off my chair laughing at this response I found it difficult to respond as there is a ban on calling people fucken idiots.

Yeah, because you can totally rig a gigantic building to collapse in a controlled fashion in a couple of hours during an evacuation drill. And then cover up the extensive damage to, well, everything that such rigging causes

It doesn't matter, anyway: if someone says a revelation like that, demand proof immediately. 9/10 times, the claim is a flat-out lie, anyway.

As for the NIST debunking, it's the usual piece of drivel, written in 30 minutes by a guy who doesn't even know where to start a quantiative analysis. Seriously "If the interior structure was rigid, it should've stopped the collapse"? Does he even understand what he said?

And at the end, the CT cherry: quoting random experts

It's a very old trick: there are two basic approaches CTs use with regards to experts they quote.

1) Find someone who supports your theory and has impressive sounding qualifications. Quote him and ignore the fact his qualifications don't have anything to do with the subject matter (How does a guy working at the Naval Research Laboratory know if a building was destroyed in a controlled demolition?). Moon Landing hoaxers did that with a Hasselblad mechanical engineer who modified the Data Cameras for the moon mission: they asked him about lighting of a scene shot with the camera, while he's an expert on the mechanisms of the camera.

2) Find an expert in the correct field, show him a low-quality snippet of the subject matter, ask his opinion and then quote it out of context (oh, yeah, WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition is an offhand comment, not a deep-down analysis, for fuck's sake! I can see clouds that look like Star Destroyers ; Does this mean we're being secretly invaded by the Galactic Empire? )

[The Big I]

there is NO WAY that a fire could make a building collapse

like that..it is impossible as structural engineers will

and HAVE said and also IT HAS NEVER HAPPENNED EVER BEFORE.

the flight recorders,the 757 into the pentagon at mach 3,

757 cannot go that fast..to many unanswered questions.

9/11 inside job.

or theres always this gem

they pulled it,

they made the decision to pull,and the building collapsed.

this guy is a jew so that would be a deadset giveaway too.

[The Big I]

This was his comeback to the mach 3 comment as I'm at work I can't watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

[Big Phil]

3. Fox lies and lies and lies about 9-11 conspiracy and coverup because the so-called 9-11 Flights were impossible Forget how it was almost impossible for highly skilled pilots, let alone rank amateurs, to fly full bodied jets into the Trade Center Towers and Pentagon in the way they did.
A video on YouTube apparently puts to rest the official story that wide bodied passenger jets completed arcing descending paths at over 500 miles an hour into the Trade Center towers and Pentagon respectively. Numerous videos purporting to have captured the flights confirm the story.
The problem is that the YouTube video proves that below 1000 feet and at speeds over of 350 miles and hour, the lift from the wings becomes greater than the down thrust from the aerilons and the nose is forced up. In other words, at that speed and at that altitude, a plane must ascend. It is therefore impossible for planes to have descended into the Trade Center and Pentagon at those speeds and that close a level to the ground. If you know how to download videos it might be prudent to save a copy to your computer for providence.

Wait, someone is actually arguing that airplanes cannot descend below 1000 feet if they're flying faster than 350 MPH, they can only ascend?

[Kuja]

there is NO WAY that a fire could make a building collapse

like that..it is impossible as structural engineers will

and HAVE said and also IT HAS NEVER HAPPENNED EVER BEFORE.

the flight recorders,the 757 into the pentagon at mach 3,

757 cannot go that fast..to many unanswered questions.

9/11 inside job.

or theres always this gem

they pulled it,

they made the decision to pull,and the building collapsed.

this guy is a jew so that would be a deadset giveaway too.

What the fuck were you smoking when you typed this?

[CaptainChewbacca]

Wait, someone is actually arguing that airplanes cannot descend below 1000 feet if they're flying faster than 350 MPH, they can only ascend?

Then how do they land?

[Broomstick]

3. Fox lies and lies and lies about 9-11 conspiracy and coverup because the so-called 9-11 Flights were impossible Forget how it was almost impossible for highly skilled pilots, let alone rank amateurs, to fly full bodied jets into the Trade Center Towers and Pentagon in the way they did.
A video on YouTube apparently puts to rest the official story that wide bodied passenger jets completed arcing descending paths at over 500 miles an hour into the Trade Center towers and Pentagon respectively. Numerous videos purporting to have captured the flights confirm the story.
The problem is that the YouTube video proves that below 1000 feet and at speeds over of 350 miles and hour, the lift from the wings becomes greater than the down thrust from the aerilons and the nose is forced up. In other words, at that speed and at that altitude, a plane must ascend. It is therefore impossible for planes to have descended into the Trade Center and Pentagon at those speeds and that close a level to the ground. If you know how to download videos it might be prudent to save a copy to your computer for providence.

Wait, someone is actually arguing that airplanes cannot descend below 1000 feet if they're flying faster than 350 MPH, they can only ascend?

What gets me is that they are claiming the "down force" comes from the ailerons - which it doesn't. That's a tip off right there they're talking out their ass because their mouth knows better.

For those of you wondering... the "down force" comes from the elevator or its equivalent on the tail of the airplane. The ailerons are on the wings.

Then how do they land?

Obviously, the go slower than 350 mph.

Actually, airplanes aren't supposed to be going faster than 200 mph on final approach (VERY simplified reading of the regs, there are a couple exceptions). I emphasize that that is a regulatory limit, not a physical one.

[Stuart]

Then how do they land?

A better question would be how a B-1B manages to terrain-skim at Mach -.85 and 200 feet.

[lPeregrine]

I assume he's refering to ground effect, where the ground changes the airflow over the wing and produces increased lift/reduced drag. Of course there's three problems here

1) Ground effect only happens within about a wingspan-length of the ground. Above this very low altitude, it drops off quickly to zero. At 1000', or at the height the planes hit the towers, the plane will fly exactly as it would at 10,000'.

2) Ground effect isn't some unbreakable wall (consider how many planes have crashed going that fast), it just causes the plane to "float" down the runway until it loses enough airspeed to drop the last few feet. Of course this is because normally, you want to land nose-high (keeping the weak nose wheel from hitting first) with a safe rate of descent to avoid bouncing/breaking the landing gear. Obviously neither of those are a concern when you're making a suicide attack.

3) As has been pointed out, ailerons have absolutely nothing to do with down thrust. Any "expert" who makes such a basic mistake is an obvious fraud.

4) Note where he says "arcing descending paths". This is actually a pretty good sign that the pilots weren't highly skilled professionals. The desperate turns to hit the target show a lack of skill, the expert pilot would have flown straight in from a hundred miles away, with only very minor corrections. Point out the concession in his own words.

Of course the skill demands are highly overstated here. It took me 63 hours of training to get my pilot's license, but only about an hour of that was the basic stuff required to crash a plane. It's learning how NOT to crash the plane that takes so much time and skill.

[aerius]

Going at it from another angle. If the government had the power to setup a conspiracy involving countless thousands of people, and keep them all quiet for years, you'd think that they could easily find & disappear every last one of the conspiracy whack-a-loonies. Hell, just do a WHOIS search of the 9/11 whack-a-loonie sites and you'd have the contact info for the owners who can now be hunted down and sent to Gitmo. Since they also have the Telco companies on their side, it wouldn't be too hard to track down and put surveillance squads on everyone visiting those sites and have them shipped off to Syria for 3rd party torture. If the government were truly as ruthless & evil as those conspiracy loonies claim, they'd all be disappeared or dead.

[starslayer]

Not even nuclear reactor domes, the most strongest civil structures in modern architecture, can withstand a full-on, direct collision with a 747.

At best, it can only make the plane "slide" away (its a dome afterall) or just keep the radioactives inside in case of a direct collision.

According to this video, they almost certainly can. And yes, I know a 747 is far far massive than a Phantom.

[The Big I]

3. Fox lies and lies and lies about 9-11 conspiracy and coverup because the so-called 9-11 Flights were impossible Forget how it was almost impossible for highly skilled pilots, let alone rank amateurs, to fly full bodied jets into the Trade Center Towers and Pentagon in the way they did.
A video on YouTube apparently puts to rest the official story that wide bodied passenger jets completed arcing descending paths at over 500 miles an hour into the Trade Center towers and Pentagon respectively. Numerous videos purporting to have captured the flights confirm the story.
The problem is that the YouTube video proves that below 1000 feet and at speeds over of 350 miles and hour, the lift from the wings becomes greater than the down thrust from the aerilons and the nose is forced up. In other words, at that speed and at that altitude, a plane must ascend. It is therefore impossible for planes to have descended into the Trade Center and Pentagon at those speeds and that close a level to the ground. If you know how to download videos it might be prudent to save a copy to your computer for providence.

Wait, someone is actually arguing that airplanes cannot descend below 1000 feet if they're flying faster than 350 MPH, they can only ascend?

Yes they are saying that exactly they claim to have pilots saying that its impossible to fly that low and hit buildings
The stuff that I cut and pasted for your enjoyment are the actual responses from the 911truthers personally I'm not taleted enough to come up with this stuff or I'd be writting fanfiction and not reading it

[The Big I]

here you go the conspiracy deepens What's with the conspiracy theorist extreme dislike of the jews... opps the zionist anyway???




Reading Ron Paul�s Old Newsletters: �93 WTC Bombing a Mossad �Set-Up�?
Posted by Daniel Treiman, January 8, 2008, 6:44 pm
The New Republic�s James Kirchik reads the political newsletters that Ron Paul was busy putting out in the decades before he became a national political figure. In the future presidential candidate�s newsletters Kirchik finds crazy conspiracy theories, hostility to blacks in general (and Martin Luther King Jr. in particular), anti-gay remarks and some unkind words about Israel:

Kirchick writes:

�The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul�s Investment Letter called Israel �an aggressive, national socialist state,� and a 1990 newsletter discussed the �tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.� Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, �Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.�

While the authorship of the individual newsletter articles is not always clear, Kirchik argues:

�whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul�s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him�and reflected his views.

Hat tip: NJDC blog.

[The Big I]

I'm always curious why are conspiracy theorist so racist? It seems to me that conspiracy sites are just a dressed up stormfront web, actually most of the stuff that comes from the conspiracy sites are worse than anything from stormfront. Some of the stuff that they c & P on the yahoo message board is beyond disgusting.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'm always curious why are conspiracy theorist so racist?

Because an entire ethnicity is a large enough group to pull off a world-wide conspiracy, so they're an easy scapegoat for their nutso ideas.

[PeZook]

They're racist because CTs are mostly complete idiots, and complete idiots like to have their beliefs validated. It also just do happens that idiots are usually ignorant and...racist. So an idiot proposing a conspiracy theory will try to not only validate his beliefs about science and the government, but also about jews (who he hated before, but now he has a real REASON!), blacks and Europe.

[Hillary]

What kind of skyscraper catches fire (without getting hit, by, something like a jet full of liquid fuel), anyway? I mean, it's all steel and concrete, there isn't much flammable in it, right?

The office furniture, as has been said, is highly flammable. What's more, it will burn at far higher temperatures than the fuel from the plane.

As has also been said, the smoke from these fires is also flammable and will catch fire when hot enough.

Funnily enough, someone spoke to me about 9/11 this week and was rabbiting on about billions of dollars of put options being purchased just before it happened, i.e. people knew it was going to occur.

Has anyone heard this line before (I know it proves nothing)?

[Kamakazie Sith]

there is NO WAY that a fire could make a building collapse

like that..it is impossible as structural engineers will

and HAVE said and also IT HAS NEVER HAPPENNED EVER BEFORE.

the flight recorders,the 757 into the pentagon at mach 3,

757 cannot go that fast..to many unanswered questions.

9/11 inside job.

or theres always this gem

they pulled it,

they made the decision to pull,and the building collapsed.

this guy is a jew so that would be a deadset giveaway too.

Actually, that looks like conspiracy theorist format. He just cut and pasted. I love how CTers just invent shit (mach 3 data recorder)

[BountyHunterSAx]

While I can understand why you might want actual counter-points and evidence, I'd like to re-iterate a reubuttal that Maddox says on his webpage (paraphrased, of course).

The simplest disproof that the government was behind 9/11 and its consequent follow up is that Glenn Beck is still alive and well. If the Government had pulled off such an elaborate trickery, and a subsequent elaborate coverup with such excellent coordination and military precision; and further in so doing they willingly sacrificed several thousand of their own citizens, then why on God's green earth would they let one stupid college kid get away with sharing 'Loose Changes' with the entire world? Why did their coverup stop on 9/11?

Once again, while it may not be the most direct or most point-by-point refutation, it's certainly simpler to explain this to an idiot who defies science and reason.

-AHMAD

[2000AD]

Cracked had a humourous look at it with:
Point: Conspiracy theorists are liars
and
Counterpoint: Conspiracy theorists are retarded

The best bits being from the 'retarded' section with:
- The bomb squad dogs, trained to sniff out traces of explosives, that were routinely brought in after the previous terroist bomb at the WTC somehow missed that the entire building was being wired with explosives. And no one else in the building noticed anything at all during the months it would take to wire up all the towers for controlled demolition.
- How much money it would take to bribe everyone involved in the conspiracy.

[PeZook]

Personally, I like accusing CTs of cowardice.

If you really think your government destroyed both towers and intentionally murdered over 3000 of your countrymen, why are you ranting about it on your blogs and websites?

You should be fucking organizing an armed insurrection, not making it easier for the murderous psychopaths running the country to find and kill you.

[Kitsune]

Instead of starting a new thread, I though I would ask this here.

Is there enough hits of large planes on sky scrapers to interpret the kind of damage which normal results?

[Broomstick]

No.

We have computer simulations, but so far the 9/11 airplanes are the only big jets to hit a big skyscraper.

Airplanes have hit buildings before, and they have hit skyscrapers before, but such big airplanes have not hit skyscrapers before. Notably, the Empire State Building was hit by an airplane in the 40's, but while large by that era's standards it was small compared to a big Boeing of today. A great deal of the damage was done not by the airplanes but by the building collapse - and skyscraper collapses are notably rare. We have experience with "controlled demolitions", but they are quite different in detail and results even if similar in gross visual appearance.