Arguments to debunk 9-11 conspiracy

[Tolya]

I've read and seen the movies about the 9-11 conspiracy (teh government is bad, m'kay?).

Can you suggest me any reading material that refutes their arguments? I never paid that much attention to the 9-11 fundies, but this hype is slowly getting near my whereabouts.

I actually met my friend some time ago, who believes that 9-11 attacks were done by the US government. Aside from pointing out the sheer stupidity of that theory, I wasn't able to present any good counter arguments because... I know "shit about bitch".

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've read and seen the movies about the 9-11 conspiracy (teh government is bad, m'kay?).

Can you suggest me any reading material that refutes their arguments? I never paid that much attention to the 9-11 fundies, but this hype is slowly getting near my whereabouts.

I actually met my friend some time ago, who believes that 9-11 attacks were done by the US government. Aside from pointing out the sheer stupidity of that theory, I wasn't able to present any good counter arguments because... I know "shit about bitch".

There are so many of these types of arguments it's pointless to ask for a general debunking. Did they actually present any evidence for their claims? That would be a good start...because usually their evidence if circumstantial, and way out there.

[The Big I]

I have a few from another site pm me for the actual site here a few anyway.


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.

2. ----When and where did a steel frame building ever collapse as a result of fire apart from ,as alleged, on 9/11 ?------

3. What caused WTC 7 to fall


The 911truthers are like relegous fanatics they belive what they believe I'm sure facts will get in the way.

I'll get more when I feel like.

[cosmicalstorm]

Yes that movement is largely like a religion, they have seen the truth (found jesus) and now they are trying to share their newfound wisdom with the "sheeple" (the sinners). And any argument you come up with against their wisdom will be duly countered with a youtube video (a bible verse).

Personally I would'nt actually put it past some people in the White House to do something like that, but that they are simply way, waa-ay to stupid to pull it off. Look at the Iraq invasion, FEMA's response to Katrina, Operation Eagle Claw and what not.
The goverment is so fucking filled with incompetence that it makes my head spin, if they had actually tried to pull off 9/11 im sure both planes would have missed the towers and the one bound for the Pentagon would have been unable to take off due to computer problems.

[Tolya]

There are so many of these types of arguments it's pointless to ask for a general debunking. Did they actually present any evidence for their claims? That would be a good start...because usually their evidence if circumstantial, and way out there.

I was thinking of something along the lines of Mike's website on creationism.

One of the arguments was the "invincible" "teh hole in Pentagon was too small for a passenger plane!" and "no engines and bodies were found!" bullshit.

When I pointed out that there are numerous reports and even photographs of the airplane parts scattered around the area, they said that the experts were on the gov't payroll and the photos were photoshopped...

I did not reply at that point...you probably know why.

[Azazal]

There are some good starting points over at JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82689

[Tolya]

Thanks, Azazal. That is exactly what I was looking for.

[PeZook]

http://www.debunking911.com/

Here ya go. To be honest, most of their arguments are silly and should be easy to debunk. There's a simple rule to follow:

When a 911 truther speaks about the conspiracy, he's lying.

Really, they mostly do. Remember the "small hole argument"? The picture used actually showed the E-Ring hole punched through the wall by the jet's landing gear, not the entry hole made by the entire plane. That's the kind of thing they always try to pull: same goes with steel buildings never collapsing, the "These towers were designed to withstand such impacts bit!" (hint: they weren't. The jets were moving almost twice as fast as what the impact models assumed), the "no plane left in Pennsylvania" argument...

100% of all Twoofer arguments are either lies, or born out of sheer ignorance.

Oh, and when the guy starts saying stuff like "All the governments were on a government payroll and thus stay silent", ask how he knows about that and still lives. The government was able to silence thousands of people with threats ; Why not two college students and their little video?

[Shroom Man 777]

If the government has no trouble with murdering thousands of people, or erasing those people, then these Truthers should really be more concerned about whether or not they'd be waking up the next morning...

Yes. Someone should go and tell them that "We" are "coming for you."

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm pretty sure other steel buildings HAVE collapsed due to structural fires, but I'll be durned if I can remember any of them. Anybody?

[RedImperator]

I'm pretty sure other steel buildings HAVE collapsed due to structural fires, but I'll be durned if I can remember any of them. Anybody?

There are any number of smaller steel buildings which partially or fully collapsed in a fire; so far as I know, though, no skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire. Of course, no skyscraper had ever been hit by a fully fueled 757 at 600 miles per hour, either, nor had any skyscraper had another skyscraper fall on it and ignite a massive storage tank full of diesel fuel.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So, 9/11 was in fact the largest/most severe skyscraper fire up to that point?

[Azazal]

So, 9/11 was in fact the largest/most severe skyscraper fire up to that point?

Pretty much, for another steel structure that fell due to an uncontrolled fire, check out the Madrid tower, the concrete core stood through the fire, but the steel flooring sections collapsed.

[Shroom Man 777]

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?

[CaptainChewbacca]

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 stuff between each 'floor' should all be your usual office stuff, which is all pretty flammable.

[LadyTevar]

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 internal decorating can burn, just as if the building was brick. Fabric walls of office cubicals and fabric rugs, fiberglass ceiling panels, plastics in computers, wiring, paper reams.... the list goes on.

Then you have the fun when the burning materials have released enough toxic/flamable gases into the air, and the tempurature reaches a point to ignite it. From then on, the air itself is burning, and spreading the fire further. There's a scientific term as well as a fire-fighter's term for the phenominon, but I can't remember it right now.

[Kanastrous]

Flash-over.

[LadyTevar]

Flash-over.

Thanks Kan I knew it was 'over', but I was thinking "burn over" and knew that wasn't right.

[Turin]

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 Meridian Plaza fire here in Philadelphia had a fairly incredible fire back in '91, which resulted in the building being so badly damaged it was eventually demolished. I happened to have as one of my old college professors one of the structural engineers involved with assessing the damage after the fact.

The degree of structural damage produced during the fire at One Meridian Plaza suggests that the requirements for structural fire resistance should be reexamined. Floor assemblies deflected as much as three feet in some places.

My professor also said that some of the columns had actually suffering a twisting deformation. The interesting thing about this was that despite this kind of damage, that building was unusually well-built, with a higher structural safety factor than normal for a building of its type (the original structural engineer had a local reputation for such). Only the installation of sprinklers on one of the upper floors stopped the fire.

In the case of WTC, we have all these factors, plus the impact that knocked out the fire suppression systems on the affected floor and the fireproofing on the steel.

[Zixinus]

"These towers were designed to withstand such impacts

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.

[Civil War Man]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

Maddox's site regarding 9/11 conspiracies. Contains links to the technical rebuttals, but the text of the article focuses on a disproof of the conspiracy that anyone can understand.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are so many of these types of arguments it's pointless to ask for a general debunking. Did they actually present any evidence for their claims? That would be a good start...because usually their evidence if circumstantial, and way out there.

I was thinking of something along the lines of Mike's website on creationism.

One of the arguments was the "invincible" "teh hole in Pentagon was too small for a passenger plane!" and "no engines and bodies were found!" bullshit.

When I pointed out that there are numerous reports and even photographs of the airplane parts scattered around the area, they said that the experts were on the gov't payroll and the photos were photoshopped...

I did not reply at that point...you probably know why.

Here you are

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are so many of these types of arguments it's pointless to ask for a general debunking. Did they actually present any evidence for their claims? That would be a good start...because usually their evidence if circumstantial, and way out there.

I was thinking of something along the lines of Mike's website on creationism.

One of the arguments was the "invincible" "teh hole in Pentagon was too small for a passenger plane!" and "no engines and bodies were found!" bullshit.

When I pointed out that there are numerous reports and even photographs of the airplane parts scattered around the area, they said that the experts were on the gov't payroll and the photos were photoshopped...

I did not reply at that point...you probably know why.

Here you are

Disregard. I missed PeZooks post.

[JBG]

The "Popular Mechanics" site has a good technical rebuttal without being, well, too technical!

One I've had fun with is the "but the jet fuel didn't burn hot enough to melt steel and, therefore, the building must have been demolished to serve the inscrutable purposes of a vast conspiracy?" Of course the steel would lose structural strength well before liquifying.

[PeZook]

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)