Looking for debunkings of WTC-7 theories

R. U. Serious · Post by **R. U. Serious** » 2006-08-05 03:57am

Hi there,

you probably have heard of the "questions and suspicions" around the collapse of WTC-7. It seems that it is the area with the least brain-dead theories and questions, so I am looking for information/reports/websites that debunk/answer the arguments and questions around the WTC-7 collapse. (Not the twin towers)

If you are not familiar here are some links:
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_consp ... ade_Center
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (only parts of this)

I am aware of the FEMA report and have seen the NIST slides. Though they (obviously) don't directly refer to and debunk the arguments above (and I am not suggesting they should). Also the fact that FEMA report itself says that its theory has a low probability of occurring and further study should be done, does not exactly help.

So, can any of you help me find credible/plausible sources out there that respond to the arguments/questions on the above sites?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-07 02:36pm

All of the Tin foil ideas about 911 summed up in one nice post..

it was all a vast conspiracy by the BFEE and nothing anyone says will ever convince me otherwise";
"NORAD had orders to 'stand down' so that * could pull it all off";
"war games were scheduled for that day to distract from the real world events";
"Jews were warned to stay away from work that day";
"the Jews did it";
"I'm postulating as fact something that I just pulled out of my... er, ear";
"Steven Jones should be believed even though he has no expertise whatsoever in the fields of science that he postulates on";
"Loose Change is amazing";
"Loose Change is garbage" (pay no attention to the CTers change of heart after its hundreds of glaring errors were pointed out);
"there were no planes, they were holograms";
"the real planes were diverted to a military base and all the passengers executed";
"a bunny cage in my backyard equates to scientific research and proves that the towers couldn't possibly have collapsed";
"oops ~ not so scientific, that");
"Alex Jones should be believed because he yells really loud";
"Norm Chomsky does not believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories for a nanosecond" (oops ~ how did that sneak in there?);
"it would only require 7 people to pull of 9/11";
"thousands of people who worked at the WTC towers were part of a massive conspiracy to kill John O'Neill" along with many thousands of others outside of the WTC towers, of course ~ oops, what happened to the whole thing requiring only 7 people?;
"911 Eyewitness is amazing";
"911 Eyewitness sucks now that its glaring errors have been pointed out by others, never mind";
"some guy using various aliases on the internet claims to have been a whistleblower in several different conspiracies and they are all somehow connected to 9/11";
"none of the planes actually took off that day";
"missiles and holograms are the answer";
"all of the passengers on those non-existent planes were actually taken out and killed and disappeared by the gov't";
"the passengers were diverted to some top secret underwater world and are all alive and well there"; "the WTC towers had concrete cores";
"the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions even thought their collapses look absolutely nothing like any controlled demolition before or since";
"FDNY murdered their fellow firefighters and they caught it all on tape in a "snuff film";
"because someone with zero background or experience in structural engineering or controlled demolitions says so, it must be true that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions"; "the existence of sulfur means that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions";
"the evidence was quickly destroyed, the steel was taken away and sold overseas immediately thus destroying the evidence that would prove controlled demolitions";
"the fires were so 'spooky' that firefighters didn't want to go near them";
"the shadows on the west face of the north side of the building on the right in this photograph taken from the west shows that it must have been a conspiracy even though I have no idea when the photograph was taken and even though I have no idea what I'm talking about";
"I don't need any evidence to support my conspiracy theory but you need detailed photographic evidence (even in situations where none is possible for obvious reasons) to refute my conspiracy theories"; "there were no planes";
"there duplicate planes";
"planes were diverted and dumped in the ocean";
"planes landed in Cleveland or Portland and were subsequently dealt with";
"Larry Silverstein admitted to demolishing WTC7";
"Larry Silverstein owned a strip club called Runway 69";
"it was all done by remote controlled planes";
"oh yeah, controlled demolitions don't look like that so it was something new and improved, but don't ask me what it was, it's sufficient to say that "they" did it";
"we don't need no stinking evidence";
"but what about the pyroclastic flow?";
"oh, okay, it's true that the whole 'pyroclastic flow' bit was a meme I was repeating but eventually admit was meaningless and moot and could never provide any support for, never mind";
"Hopsicker is dead on";
"Oops, Hopsicker is totally wrong";
"the buildings fell at free fall speeds"
"okay, so they didn't fall at free fall speeds, but what does that matter?";
"I can control gravity";
"Okay, okay, so I can't control gravity but I'd had a few beers when I said that, so what does it matter?";
"when in doubt, make up a silly analogy about granny's head blowing up";

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2006-08-07 11:22pm

"FDNY murdered their fellow firefighters and they caught it all on tape in a "snuff film";

You can't be serious...

People actually say this bullshit and believe it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-07 11:31pm

Which part of those arguments did you find particularly intriguing? Every single part of it stinks like bullshit to me.

I particularly like the idiot BYU prof (so much for that institution's credibility) who said it was a mystery how there could be red-hot steel in the basement of the collapsed building if it was not destroyed with a controlled demolition. Hasn't this idiot ever heard of gravitational potential energy and work heating? You have thousands of tons falling from great height, and he can't figure out where the fucking energy to heat the steel might have come from? ? He's supposed to be a goddamned physics prof and he doesn't understand these things? It's too bad physicists don't need licenses, or someone would be able to take his license away.

I also like his idiotic assumption that the only way to explain the molten metal is thermite, which he then uses to flog his "controlled demolition" bullshit as if a controlled demolition would really use thermite instead of high explosives.

And what about the harping on the vertical collapse? Why is it so hard to believe that a building would just happen to collapse in the direction of a little force known as gravity? Have we really sunk so low that this constitutes "evidence" for a "controlled demolition"? Of course, he tries to compare it to the difficulty of executing a completely controlled vertical demolition, totally neglecting the fact that there was significant damage outside the actual building footprint, so it was anything but a controlled collapse. In fact, after the preliminary FEMA reports that are so harped-upon by conspiracy theorists, further examination revealed that Tower 7 took heavy damage from debris that flew away from the collapse of the twin towers: the kind of debris that is not supposed to fly away and destroy other buildings in a controlled demolition.

The fact that Wikipedia reports this garbage as anything other than low farce is a perfect indictment of the entire Wikipedia concept.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2006-08-07 11:43pm

He must have not seen the video where the towers fell apart first at the impact sites and then collapsed down to the basement. Or perhaps all the news footage was a lie. Perhaps the whole thing was filmed in a secret hanger near Groom's Lake using minatures, and the twin towers never existed in the first place. Elvis lives on the moon with his gay lover 2Pac, and the light in your refridgerator really stays on after you close the door.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2006-08-08 12:52am

It was filmed at R U Lyon Studios in Nevada. Thats the same place there the moon landing was filmed. The Twin Towers destruction used miniatures, RC Airplanes, and CGI. The Pentagon used Miniatures and CGI. I heard that Jerry Bruckheimer was directing.

or maybe it was John Woo...

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-08-08 03:50am

You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. You get people walking around the place for weeks, smashing walls, marking spots for explosives, drilling holes for dynamite, wrapping structural support beams in detcord. It basically requires the building to be totally smashed up inside to get to the meaty parts that need cutting or blowing apart.

And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-08-08 06:44am

So, can any of you help me find credible/plausible sources out there that respond to the arguments/questions on the above sites?

Try the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the BAUTforum (Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum).
There have been extensive discussions about 911 and WTC collapse. In particlar read the posts by JayUtah.

About the WTC7 collapse, there are mainly two things conspiracists cling to - as far as I remember: the idea that the fires were not enough to cause the collapse (ignoring the fact that the building was actually damaged by debris), and that the owner of the building said to the firemen to "pull it" (mistaken this as the jargon used in controlled demolition).

If you ever followed a debate with creationists, fundies or Trektards, you will notice the same tactics are used by conspiracy theorists.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-08-08 06:46am

PeZook wrote:You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. You get people walking around the place for weeks, smashing walls, marking spots for explosives, drilling holes for dynamite, wrapping structural support beams in detcord. It basically requires the building to be totally smashed up inside to get to the meaty parts that need cutting or blowing apart.

And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?

Come on!
You must have seen the James Bond movies. You should know that somebody disguised as the mailman could have placed a few charges here and there to blow up the building.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 07:11am

PeZook wrote:You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. You get people walking around the place for weeks, smashing walls, marking spots for explosives, drilling holes for dynamite, wrapping structural support beams in detcord. It basically requires the building to be totally smashed up inside to get to the meaty parts that need cutting or blowing apart.

And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?

I really dont want to post the shit, where the CT's say its just janitor crews at night planting Demo Charges.

LeftWingExtremist · Post by **LeftWingExtremist** » 2006-08-08 07:22am

You know what the sad thing is. They are giving way to much credit to George Bush. Bush strikes me as somone who is way to stupid to come up with something this organised.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 07:27am

LeftWingExtremist wrote:You know what the sad thing is. They are giving way to much credit to George Bush. Bush strikes me as somone who is way to stupid to come up with something this organised.

Not GW.. Chaney

oh and Larry Silverstien...

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-08-08 07:27am

theski wrote:
PeZook wrote:You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. You get people walking around the place for weeks, smashing walls, marking spots for explosives, drilling holes for dynamite, wrapping structural support beams in detcord. It basically requires the building to be totally smashed up inside to get to the meaty parts that need cutting or blowing apart.

And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?
I really dont want to post the shit, where the CT's say its just janitor crews at night planting Demo Charges.

Well, you can, of course, destroy the building with a large enough bomb simply planted below it (or an airliner smashing into it, obviously). But these idiots claim the collapse was too orderly for this kind of thing. (and, naturally, it wasn't) An orderly, controlled demolition requires lots of precisely timed explosives (as in not only "bombs with timers", but charges that burn at exactly the right speed, placed at the right spots, sometimes physically wrapped around naked support beams), and this leads to aforementioned holes in walls, floors and ceilings, because you just can't place a satchel charge someplace and expect the demolition to be any sort of "controlled", therefore it couldn't have been done by janitors at night, end of story.

Christ, you can get that info from watching the Discovery Channel...either CT's don't do that as a matter of principle, or tune out everything that doesn't match their little theory.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 07:33am

PeZook wrote:
theski wrote:
PeZook wrote:You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. You get people walking around the place for weeks, smashing walls, marking spots for explosives, drilling holes for dynamite, wrapping structural support beams in detcord. It basically requires the building to be totally smashed up inside to get to the meaty parts that need cutting or blowing apart.

And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?
I really dont want to post the shit, where the CT's say its just janitor crews at night planting Demo Charges.
Well, you can, of course, destroy the building with a large enough bomb simply planted below it (or an airliner smashing into it, obviously). But these idiots claim the collapse was too orderly for this kind of thing. (and, naturally, it wasn't) An orderly, controlled demolition requires lots of precisely timed explosives (as in not only "bombs with timers", but charges that burn at exactly the right speed, placed at the right spots, sometimes physically wrapped around naked support beams), and this leads to aforementioned holes in walls, floors and ceilings, because you just can't place a satchel charge someplace and expect the demolition to be any sort of "controlled", therefore it couldn't have been done by janitors at night, end of story.

Christ, you can get that info from watching the Discovery Channel...either CT's don't do that as a matter of principle, or tune out everything that doesn't match their little theory.

Ding ding.. and if you dont believe in it.. you are a Paid GOv shill...

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-08-08 07:48am

theski wrote: Ding ding.. and if you dont believe in it.. you are a Paid GOv shill...

Uh...so, is the Polish government in on it?

It is interesting from a debating point of view, what is the best tactic in this kind of situation? I have a feeling that detailed attacks against every one of their arguments, like the one above, are not the optimal approach.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 07:55am

PeZook wrote:
theski wrote: Ding ding.. and if you dont believe in it.. you are a Paid GOv shill...
Uh...so, is the Polish government in on it?

It is interesting from a debating point of view, what is the best tactic in this kind of situation? I have a feeling that detailed attacks against every one of their arguments, like the one above, are not the optimal approach.

Only us in the states get to claim that honor.. oh and the Jews

JA jestem także polskie, moja rodzina jest od po prostu (dopiero co) północy Warszawy

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-08-08 08:30am

theski wrote: Only us in the states get to claim that honor.. oh and the Jews

Aww, damn. Our conspiracy theorists make up stupid shit like Taliban agents making bio-weapons on an abandoned cow farm. Why can't we have a piece of Illuminati world-control stuff?

I feel inadequate

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2006-08-08 08:37am

PeZook wrote: It is interesting from a debating point of view, what is the best tactic in this kind of situation? I have a feeling that detailed attacks against every one of their arguments, like the one above, are not the optimal approach.

Don't accept arguments like "they had motive..." "it could have been possible...".
For example, if the claim is that the WTC was brought down by controlled demoltion, they have to show that it was controlled demolition, not that it could have been controlled demoltion, or that the US government/worldwide jew conspiracy/whatever had a motive to do it.

In order to justify their preconceptions, they end up with scenarios that are contradictory or much less likely to work.

Another way is to push them to justify they expectations. If a conspiracist says "It looked like controlled demolition" or "The flighpath of the planes was too perfect", ask him how does he know what controlled demolition looks like or what piloting experience he has.

It usually turns out that they are simply regurgitating claims they have read somewhere, but never checked by themselves.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 08:46am

I didn't want to do this but here goes..

This could possibly be the greatest thread in the history of CT and 911

its long and filled with everthing that we mock...

TINFOIL FIRST

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2006-08-08 08:58am

God...you see this, and yet you withold the lightning...

What a brilliant experiment! An amazing refutation of reports written by specialists in the field!
Truly, an incredible show of wit, done by a man blessed with a scientific mind of the highest order!

...

What a goddamned fucking loon.

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-08-08 09:29am

theski wrote:I didn't want to do this but here goes..

This could possibly be the greatest thread in the history of CT and 911

its long and filled with everthing that we mock...

TINFOIL FIRST

I see your thread and rasie you four, luckily the good guys are winning these:
Loose Change 1
Loose Change 2
Loose Change 3
And finally Loose Change 4

All are pretty huge threads, but there is a ton of info that debunks just about every nut case theory out there

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-08-08 09:32am

Azazal wrote:
theski wrote:I didn't want to do this but here goes..

This could possibly be the greatest thread in the history of CT and 911

its long and filled with everthing that we mock...

TINFOIL FIRST
I see your thread and rasie you four, luckily the good guys are winning these:
Loose Change 1
Loose Change 2
Loose Change 3
And finally Loose Change 4

All are pretty huge threads, but there is a ton of info that debunks just about every nut case theory out there

Don't make me MINE the Mike Mallory boards..

Spetulhu · Post by **Spetulhu** » 2006-08-08 09:53am

PeZook wrote:
theski wrote:
PeZook wrote:You can easily refute the bullshit about a controlled demolition by pointing out that it requires the building to be heavily prepped beforehand. And they're trying to tell you it was all done in secret on every floor, with people working there normally?
I really dont want to post the shit, where the CT's say its just janitor crews at night planting Demo Charges.
An orderly, controlled demolition requires lots of precisely timed explosives (as in not only "bombs with timers", but charges that burn at exactly the right speed, placed at the right spots, sometimes physically wrapped around naked support beams), and this leads to aforementioned holes in walls, floors and ceilings, because you just can't place a satchel charge someplace and expect the demolition to be any sort of "controlled", therefore it couldn't have been done by janitors at night, end of story.

What if the buildings were pre-built with explosives? Come on, lots of Supervillain Lairs come with convenient self-destruct devices! Why is it any less beliavable that the WTC towers could have been filled with the necessary explosives in the construction stage?

Except for the thousands of construction workers that would all have to keep silent about it, of course. Perhaps all of them died shortly after finishing the project?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-08-08 11:43am

Funnily enough, I was planning on starting a thread asking for good sites that debunked "teh Pentagon was hit by a missile!!1" conspiracy nonsense. I'll look at the ones already listed, here, of course, but more would be appreciated for this specifically.

Mods: I put this here, since it was mostly on target, and I didn't think another thread was warranted. If this appears as a hijack, please split with my apologies.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-08 11:47am

You know, it's bad but not at all surprising that a lot of idiots on various web forums would spout this kind of bullshit. What I find particularly disgusting, however, is the way that a physics and astronomy prof at BYU is joining the circus. Now that is simply unacceptable, especially when you can see that he is spouting bullshit that is easily refuted by any first-year physics textbook. What the fuck kind of administration is in place at BYU? The man should be labeled as an incompetent crackpot and kicked out. Can't they do that?