Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[Year Zero]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.

[jimtron]

Hello, one of my hobbies is busting conspiracy theories, particularly those surrounding events. The 9-11 event has spawned a massive avalanche of crackpots and their logically-challenged theories involving remote-control planes, planes shooting missiles, and of course, those demolitions installed before the fateful day. Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


Other than the Popular Mechanics article, does anybody here have some good arguments against the 9-11 conspiracy or links to people that do. I am always searching for up-to-date refutations.

It might be easier if you start by describing one or more of them; I'm sure members of this forum will gladly point out any fallacies.

[BillC]

Be aware that some claims to conspiracy theories are impossible to debunk, as in the mind of some, any evidence to the contrary (such as official documentation, you yourself arguing about the conspiracy, and so on) gets simply taken as further evidence of how widespread and pervasive the conspiracy really is.

[MRC_Hans]

I have not read the demolition "theory" in detail, so let me get this straight:

We all saw, at least on TV, the planes hit the buildings and set them on fire, and we all saw, at least on TV, how the collapse started in the part of each building where the plane hit.

Are these people claiming that somebody installed hidden remote-controlled demolition charges in the buildings at some point before 9/11, then somehow arranged for the planes to hit the buildings in just the right spot on 9/11, so they could detonate their demolition charges a few hours later, making it look like the hits from the planes caused the collapse?

Is that what they are claiming?

Hans

[David Swidler]

AKAIK they ar eclaiming that the planes' impact alone wasn't sufficient to trigger the buildings' collapse. Which in tiself is true, but doesn't take into account the effect of burning jet fuel on the building's support framework.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans

[Jyera]

I wonder why do these people create doubious conspiracies?

[MRC_Hans]

Because they can't create convincing ones?

Hans

[richardm]

Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

[conspiracy hat]

They didn't need to be in exactly the right place. There was enough smoke to disguise the actual point where the collapse began.

[/conspiracy hat]

[lwsichsldt]

AKAIK they ar eclaiming that the planes' impact alone wasn't sufficient to trigger the buildings' collapse. Which in tiself is true, but doesn't take into account the effect of burning jet fuel on the building's support framework.
As far as I know the framework was protectet by some kind of fireresistant foam, but the explosion of the planes ripped most of the foam from the framework and left it unprotected.
So the WTC could withstand a fire long enough to be evacuated, but the explosion made a complet evacuation impossible.

Edit for spelling

[MRC_Hans]

Within a few floors, yes. So how was it foreseen, within a few floors, where the planes would hit (or, for that matter, that they would hit at all)?

The combination of planes and demolition charges simply don't add up. It is not made any better by the fact that a few years before, a whole truckload of explosives were detonated in the basement under one of the towers, without seriously endangering the building, so we know that any effective demolition attempt would involve hundreds of pounds of carefully placed explosives. Not something you can easily get away with doing secretly in a busy office building.

Hans

[malbui]

We all saw, at least on TV, the planes hit the buildings and set them on fire, and we all saw, at least on TV, how the collapse started in the part of each building where the plane hit.Keep up, Hans. The images we all saw on TV were faked by a crack team made up of members of the NSA, CIA, FBI, MI6, KGB, Mossad, DSG and Freemasons. We've all bought into the Big Lie.

[logical muse]

Year Zero, I have to type this quickly before the agents discover my identity.

The JREF Forum is not what it seems. It has been put into place to pacify the sceptics, by pretending to be somewhere they can air their views to supposed like-minded people. In addition, by professing to a sceptical viewpoint your details will be duly noted. If you want evidence, check out the recent 'troubles' we had here recently when some people refused to give their real names and birthdates in their profiles. These people no longer exist.

Don't trust fowlsound.

Interesting Ian is the only person who understands what is really hap

[kookbreaker]

A good resource:

www.911myths.com

Listen to the 9/11 CT's start spitting when you bring up this one.

[kookbreaker]

Of course one must ask...of all the "experts" these conspiracy theorists cite from, why wouldn't they go to the ONE source that would unravel the whole thing- a building DEMOLITIONS expert. Sounds pretty simple- show what it would take to rig that building and how they could cover that up somehow.


I'd be even satisfied if they got some Structural or Civil Engineers on their side. Instead they end up with a cranky cold fusion college physics professor who thinks that it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that makes objects fall.

[Year Zero]

I'd be even satisfied if they got some Structural or Civil Engineers on their side. Instead they end up with a cranky cold fusion college physics professor who thinks that it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics that makes objects fall.


I'm glad you brought that up because I am not too familiar with physics, and some nut was trying to tell me that it was not necessary to explain how the demolitions could take place because it "violated the laws of physics" as seen on the video. Of course there are also laws of physics involving rigging a massive building for controlled demolition and then screwing up your calculations by crashing a plane into the building, but you know conspiracy nuts...

I have heard that the BYU professor was said to have failed peer reviewed analysis on this point. Do you know any sources where I can read more about that.

[kookbreaker]

I'm glad you brought that up because I am not too familiar with physics, and some nut was trying to tell me that it was not necessary to explain how the demolitions could take place because it "violated the laws of physics" as seen on the video. Of course there are also laws of physics involving rigging a massive building for controlled demolition and then screwing up your calculations by crashing a plane into the building, but you know conspiracy nuts...

I have heard that the BYU professor was said to have failed peer reviewed analysis on this point. Do you know any sources where I can read more about that.

The people credited in his paper are not exactly building engineers and the like. The list inlcudes relgious philosophers. Jones has claimed some engineers have reviewed it, but I don't think any names have been dropped.

This link on the BAUT Forum covers it well. There are other threads on 9/11 over there that are informative.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793

[Year Zero]

The people credited in his paper are not exactly building engineers and the like. The list inlcudes relgious philosophers. Jones has claimed some engineers have reviewed it, but I don't think any names have been dropped.

This link on the BAUT Forum covers it well. There are other threads on 9/11 over there that are informative.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793


Yeah you should have seen the reaction I got once when I explained to someone what knowledge of physics isn't like some kind of superpower where you automatically understand the mechanics behind everything simply by watching them. People have calculated the physics behind the techniques of Judo; that does not mean that a physicist would stand a chance in a Judo competition without the proper training in Judo.

[JLam]

The folks who think that explosives brought down the twin towers are also convinced that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Yes. I'm serious.

But lucky for you, snopes.com has gone through this one pretty well.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[Year Zero]

The folks who think that explosives brought down the twin towers are also convinced that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon.

Yes. I'm serious.

But lucky for you, snopes.com has gone through this one pretty well.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm


The Pentagon story was crushed pretty quickly, that's why they cling to the WTC and when all hope is lost, WTC 7. But their reaction about the Pentagon story is most interesting. When it was debunked I read some conspiracy theories that this story was deliberately concocted as "disinformation". What a luxury they have: If your theory is busted, just claim that theory was put out as part of the overall conspiracy! These guys are almost as slick as the ID proponents. What I find interesting is that the John Birch Society, world-renowned for their conspiracy theories, have remained totally skeptical of the 9-11 conspiracies, which they also believe are part of a disinformation campaign.

[thesyntaxera]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentle

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go. Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock. If the towers were not demolished,

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse. Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.


want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....

[Year Zero]

I can't even begin to point out the numerous simple factual errors in this statement, but I don't blame you because I know how conspiracy theories spread. Statements are delivered with such confidence that the reader, unless he has taken special time out to verify the simple details, usually assumes to be true. Let's face it, if someone asked anyone on this forum, in person, to give a relatively detailed chronology of the events on 9-11 we would probably fail miserably. So when someone puts out a claim like, "The whole in the Pentagon was 16 feet wide" one would not be able to refute it so easily without prior research.

I have recently read over this site, and have found refutations to all of these claims, with sources cited(often the debunking can be done with the source cited by the conspiracy theorists.

www.911myths.com

Please excuse me for not personally tackling these claims, but I have literally spent months debating all of these claims WITHOUT the aid of that site, I am a bit weary of this topic. I have actually been called an agent of Larry Silverstein by proponents of the WTC 7 conspiracy claim.

[MRC_Hans]

hey fellow skeptics...it my first time...be gentleNo.

When I saw this thread I just had to reply...conspiracies theory is a pet hobby of mine as well.I bet they are.

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...Ignores fundamental debunking delivered, and claims it is non-existent. Claims t osupply info and supplies idiot propaganda? Devil's advocate, my foot. My kook alarm is on bright crimson.

Is it logical to believe the following:

two planes flying at 600 miles per hour being piloted by two certified cesna trainee's hit the trade center and pentagon.Three planes. Yes, flying is largely scalable, and these guys neither needed to take off or land. And they had had simulator training on the proper plane type.

the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete).Which 180 degree turn? That was miles before impact, and the plane did hit the ground before hitting the building. That is the reason for the three holes; the plane was partly disintegrated when it hit the building.

The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders.That's simply nonsense.

Of the WTC planes, both managed to cause fires that would ultimately bring the buildings down. The second tower to get hit was the first to go.Could that be because more than twice as much building had to be supported, above the impact site :rolleyes: ?

Even though an incredibly hot fire from burning jet fuel is what brought the building down some how people were photopgraphed standing in the holes where the the very planes struck.I dare you to prodice such photos, but it is indeed possible. After the initial blast, the holes made by the planes will act like access holes for fresh, cool air, while the hot fire goes upwards. Notice that those holes appeared dark, after the initial fireball. Ever been at a fire site? Even deep into the buring area, there are fresh-air corridors. I have seen packages wrapped in paper being quite undamaged right next to molten glass, on a fire site.

Jet fuel burns at roughly 1500 degrees...it takes a prolonged heat of over 2200 degree's to weaken it enough to fall.The temperature of a fire depends on the availability of air and fuel. You cannot state a specific temperature for a given fuel. Charcoall will normally burn at arounf 900 degrees (e.g. in your barbecue), but blow sufficient air on it and it can melt steel.

Buidling 7 was also destroyed by fire although initial reports indicated that it was small and containable. When it collapsed it fell in all at once, resembling a demolition even though it wasn't one.Building 7 was weakend by fire and the towers crashing down right beside it. Initial reports? Excuse me, are you saying that initial reports MUST be right, but the whole situation was a sham?? Do make up your mind. A building collapses from the point where it fails. If that point is near the ground (where the load on any buildng's structure is greatest), it will collapse like that.

If you dropped a rock from the roof of tower 2 at the moment it starts to fall the tower would hit the ground at the same time as the rock.Newsflash: All objects fall at the same speed (barring air resistance), buildings, stones, etc.

If the towers were not demolished,What?

The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive.Source? Again, part of the report must be accepted, although it was really all a sham? Get your referencs straight.

We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away.Nonsense.

None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.False.

All Federal protocols for dealing with highjackings were not followed until after the attacks took place, no one noticed anything was wrong despite the tight regulation of air traffic by civilians and NORAD. Washington airsapce was not being protected at the time even though Andrews air base is right next door.And (if correct) that is evidence of what? That such attacks were not expected? Duh!

No chemical test of the building steel was conducted before the metal was exported to a smelter. This decision is made after fires and explosions are reported and witnessed in the lobby of the building.False. Extensive analysis of the wreckage was performed.

Molten steel was uncovered in the core of the site two months after the collapse.And (if correct) this is evidence of what? That the building did not collapse due to the steel melting?:rolleyes:

Siesmic records indicate demolition charges at the precise time of the impacts.Ehr, but the buildings did not collapse at the time of the impacts, remember? How do you distinguish between the impact of a plane and a demolition charge, in a seismic record? How did they know where the impacts were going to be so they could place the charges there?

The flight that crashed in pennsylvania left no wreckage at all, and a 20 foot wide crater. No bodies...no engines...nothing...this was after it flew to ohio and turned around without being noticed.False. This is plain silly. We have all seen videos of the wreckage field. And yes, it was noticed. Remember, fighters were scrabled, and another conspiracy theory even claims that it was shot down by those fighters.


want more?

I have my flame retardant suit on....No thanks, unless you can do considerably better.

And that suit seems to be logic retardant, too. Perhaps you should simply take it off :rolleyes:.

Hans :nope:

[Year Zero]

Within a few floors, yes. So how was it foreseen, within a few floors, where the planes would hit (or, for that matter, that they would hit at all)?

The combination of planes and demolition charges simply don't add up. It is not made any better by the fact that a few years before, a whole truckload of explosives were detonated in the basement under one of the towers, without seriously endangering the building, so we know that any effective demolition attempt would involve hundreds of pounds of carefully placed explosives. Not something you can easily get away with doing secretly in a busy office building.

Hans



Exactly. If you read about real demolitions experts, they will tell you that there is no exact science to demolitions, only experience and educated guesses. Because of this it can take literally months to rig even a much smaller building for demolitions; and that's a building that has been prepped for destruction. This means tearing out walls, drilling holes, etc.

And the Conspiracy folks hang themselves by saying it looks like a controlled demolitions because even if you could rig that thing with absolutely nobody noticing; once you crash a plane into the building you've thrown the element of control out the window. Which begs the question, "why use planes at all"? It would have been far easier and less risky to simply fake a truck bomb and perhaps leave the towers, and not attack the Pentagon. Hell, it would have been 10 times safer than that to simply fake the thwarting of an impending attack...

But no, in conspiracy world they would have us believe that the super-geniuses that control the world are also so stupid that their schemes are unravelled sometimes even days(London Bombings) after the events by internet junkies who didn't even need to leave their house.

Thanks for your support in this issue. After being accused of being a paid-agent of Larry Silverstein, head 9-11 conspirator, I am glad to sit back and watch someone else take a few shots at CTs.

[thesyntaxera]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

[Year Zero]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.


Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

[thesyntaxera]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?


that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

[thesyntaxera]

Speaking as someone who has literally spent months debating these conspiracies, your presentation is woefully out of date. Some of the major CTs are currently claiming that the no-plane Pentagon theory was actually circulated by the conspirators as disinformation. That's the luxury CTs have when their theory gets debunked so quickly.

Other than that the other claims lack detail and sources, yet I am familiar with various incarnations of all of them. More importantly, I am familiar with the refutations and various logical flaws many of them put forth. Once again, visit 911myths.com and you will find sources and discussions far more detailed than I could ever provide in one sitting.

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.

I will be sure to check 911 myths


go to google and look up informationclearinghouse.info . Peruse the video archive on the left. watch loose change. it's short. answer the claims and argue the sources...but don't come at me like it's your mission to stomp me out just because I brought up 911.

I would post a link to the video directly, but I can't yet obviously.

[Year Zero]

I would also like to point out that I listed those claims because no one else had bothered to...as if you had meticulously researched it all yourself and determined them to be false...

Actually yes I have researched these claims and I have had them rapidly thrown at me by multiple people on a discussion forum on several occasions, sometimes single threads lasted over a week. The poor bastards never seemed to notice that many of their theories or "proofs" actually contradicted each other.


your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

No I never said all conspiracies are bunk. A skeptic believes what there is evidence for. I have not seen any convincing evidence of any of these conspiracies. What I have seen is blatant errors, massive leaps of faith, and seemingly deliberate attempts to mislead people on simple facts surrounding the event.


I was wondering what specific facts there were to debunk these claims because it could just be that I am trying to explain it to someone else to keep them from getting lost down the rabbit hole.

Go to the 911myths.com site then. All the claims are catagorized by topic.


The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I'll tell you what is revealing. The fact that you claim these theories haven't been debunked while repeatedly refusing to visit a site that claims to do just that. More importantly, many of these claims were also addressed in a now famous study published by Popular Mechanics, that boasts more credentials than the conspiracy theorists could dream about. You have also been responded to in some detail by another poster here- and yet you dismiss all this as "one or two sentences of drivel". And you claim to be a skeptic?



that, and your Ad Hominems are annoying....

What is also annoying is someone pretending to be objective, and then refusing to look at the sources someone cites. Not only have your claims been debunked, but some of those claims ARE NOT EVEN BELIEVED by some of the more popular conspiracy theorists- namely the Pentagon no-plane theory.

Just for fun, I am going to provide a few sample answers to the easiest of your questions:


"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.

2. "The planes in these attacks were highjacked by 19 arab men, even though 7 of them are still alive."

No, "they" are not alive. Many Arabs have similar names, and in several cases confusion led to people who were still alive being listed as terrorists who were already dead.

3. " the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do so by doing an almost 180 degree turn on descent at over 600 mph and managed at the last second to stay two feet off the ground without damaging anything, cruising up the lawn, and then disappearing into the building leaving in its wake three 16 foot wide holes(9feet of concrete). The plane was compeltely destroyed...even the titanium engine casings. The biggest remaining section of plane was removed under a blue tarp by men carrying it on their shoulders."

This is simply flat-out wrong. The plane actually bounced off the ground once, and several lightpoles were knocked down by the plane, which is visible in several photographs. The holes were larger than 16 feet. Plane debris was found all over the area and the flight recorders were recovered.

4. None of the highjackers were on any flight manifest. No videos show them boarding a plane.

This is just flat out wrong. I think you are confusing flight manifest with the final victims report. There is good reason for this: That report was compiled using only victims who had enough remains to be identified, identity was verified by personal effects and other samples sent in by family members. Guess who were on those planes that DIDN'T have families sending in samples....TIME'S UP!!! THE HIJACKERS! Also, the hijackers actually aren't the only people that didn't appear on the victim recovery lists either- it was compiled only of those remains that could be identified.


If you want to examine these further simply go to 911Myths.com But don't continue to say "they haven't been debunked" if you are not going to admit your obvious factual errors and not examine evidence to the contrary.

[Year Zero]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..

You have been researching this for 4 years yet you made clear simple factual errors in these claims? How could you research objectively for 4 years and never find out that the claims about the Pentagon, for example, were quickly debunked? You really need to visit that site.


the official story seems less than logical, not to say that rampant conspiranoia isn't as well.
.

The "official story" whatever that is, seems a lot more logical when the claims are accurately represented and the basic facts of that day are not distorted. Conspiracy theorists, often with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, like to refer to expert investigators as "so-called", and then proceed to point out the "holes" they see in the "official story"(which they often misstate). What I have also seen from these people, is that they do not like the same scrutiny applied to their theory. The "official story" people are expected to explain every last detail, while people that believe in the demolition are never forced to explain how the rigging of charges in the WTC was even possible without massive eyewitnesses, and why they would be so stupid as to crash planes into the building, thus invalidating all their calculations.

[Panelman]

As for the wing under the blue plastic if you see anything else besides a tube and plastic building we are not looking at the same picture.:rolleyes: All they are doing is moving a lightweight, temp. plastic building, just like the one i just put up in my backyard. Check out the ribs on the roof line.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

your response is like that of a inductive skeptic. not deductive. the logic you have used is simple and mindless..."all conspiracies are bunk so this one is as well..." there have been plenty of legitimate conspiracies over the years.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one. Please enlighten me.

[kookbreaker]

Speaking as someone who is skeptical, and has been researching(not just debating/debasing) these claims for the last 4 years I would say unless you are lurking around on the letsroll forums or other similar places you haven't the faintest as to how far out it is. The point is simple though..


I find it amusing how someone can claim to have 'researched' a topic for four years, yet still make the unsupported claim that there was molten steel in the basement.

You realise there is very little evidence for this claim, right? Its fairly indicitive of your errors.

Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?

"Research" does not mean just going to CT sites and drooling over what they call "research".

[kookbreaker]

I haven't finished reading your blind reactionism...so prejudge based on induction(the lowest form of logic) if you so wish. that, and play nice.

You claim you want to 'play nice' and then use terms like 'blind reactionism'.



Wonderful.

[Morrison's Lament]

I don't believe that anyone that has truly looked into this matter could have written such a woefully factually inaccurate post, thesyntaxera. You make several outlandish claims that have no basis in reality along with several badly outdated claims that can be taken apart in seconds with the aide of google or snopes.com.

If you're really into this conspiracy stuff, you have a lot to look forward to because it looks like you've just begun to scratch the surface of the mainstream e-mail circulated paranoia that was circulating circa 2003.

--- G.

[kookbreaker]

"1. We discovered it was Al Qeada by locating a passport that fell from Atta's pocket, and flew out of the plane, through the insanely burning fire, out the other side of the building and into the street several blocks away."

This was not the method that was used to determine the complicity of Al Qaeda, which was known at the time to be a decentralized organization. Also, while I cannot say for sure, I don't believe that the passport belonged to Atta, but possibly another hijacker. Lastly, and most importantly...NASA actually recovered a patch, among several other items from the COLOMBIA SPACE SHUTTLE DISASTER. It is in rather good shape despite the fact that it exploded out of a space shuttle 40 miles above the Earth. See 911myths.com for other items that miraciously survived 9-11.


An example I like to point out: FOUND magazine, (a magazine devoted to people sending in the odd loves notes, poems, ramblings, scribblings, and whatnot found on subways and other odd places) managed to collect pieces of paper with letterhead (with a 9/11/01 date) from a law firm that was completely and utterly destroyed by the attack. Their rooms were destroyed, and every.single person who worked for that firm was killed in the crash and fire. Yet these bare pieces of paper managed to survive the disaster.

By comparison, a Passport is thick paper, and strongly laminated. It was on a person who had momentum going into the tower, thus would be more likely to be thrown free from the tower. Certainly more likely than some legal note on a lawyer's desk.

Yet CT's act constantly 'stunned' as to how such a thing could survive.

[thesyntaxera]

first off, and let this be plain...I never said I wouldn't look at your sources...in fact I said I would look at them...read closer.

second, I am aware of the proper role of a skeptical mind. I know the typical conspiracy hierarchy, and have not come to spew diatribe about circumstantial evidence, so please...in all kindness, direct your accusatory tone, and lectures elsewhere.

third, your responding to this as if I am trying to convince you, which I am not.

now let me be the first to break your logic bubble.

After reviewing the information on your one source, 911myths.com, I have to say that it is just as poor of an excuse of information as every conspiracy hacks. They use your favorite method of reading posts to come to conclusions but of a different sort....you know, ones contrary to the conspiracy claims.

Each point they make, which barely covers all of the points brought up by the 9/11isahoax community, is only backed up by more inductivist rhetoric. All they are doing is demonstrating that you can interpret the information in different ways.

There are some that contradict themselves...for instance the claim that there was molten steel...they assert that we couldn't know either way, then show a picture of molten metal that "could" be steel...but then say since it isn't verified...how can we know? The contradiction enters in, when they stand by the finding that the very cause of the collapse was do to the damage and melting of the 40 odd steel beams that were holding it up.

Asif Usamani points out-
"So the results of the analyses and the fact that the structure had sustained significant damage lead to a very strong case that the impact damage coupled with the subsequent fires were the only causes of collapse that rational minded people should need consider. The vertically downward collapse (which looks like a controlled demolition) is simply because once a large enough mass starts moving (accelerating because of gravity), it does not change direction unless met by a very large resisting force. The forces generated by a large moving mass are orders of magnitude larger than its weight (called dynamic amplification in engineering). Professor Bazant of Northwestern University (Illionois) explained this well in his paper soon after 9/11."

So I guess he forgot to take into consideration the fact that there were 80 undamaged floors of the building with an ever widening support structure as it approached the base? Wouldn't that be a sizable enough mass to change the direction of the moving mass of the upper floors? Why would the base of the building be weaker than the upper floors?

He further writes-
"Behaviour of structures in general and structures in fire in particular is a complex and very specialist engineering mechanics field that requires years study and research to understand well. It is unlikely that any of the conspiracy theories emanate from people who understand these issues."

Thats very nice of him to point out..."believe me, you couldn't possibly grasp this unless you are trained..." if you were to analyze the video evidence compared to other demolitions you would see many striking similarities, and since this guy isn't the only expert to think on this topic I would like to point out that there are other people who might argue with him on this, although 911myths.com didn't bother to seek them out.

I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either...


I could go on, this is just a small sample of the logical errors I noticed when reading the one site that convinced you of the official story.

As far as your answers to my posted point, you dodge all of them with semantics...like comparing the burning of charcoal in a grill to the heat of buring jet fuel...nonsense...

you might also want to check your facts before you use answers like NO. A lot of the things I mentioned were components of the official story, like the whole passport thing. You actually believe that a paper passport that is claimed to be launched from a plane that landed inside a building that burned so much as to fall down into a million pieces is logical because some website compared it to the columbia explosion...something that is much smaller...
I'm sure you can find all kinds of burned things there...just not a passport that sailed through a building that exploded on impact...typically you would think it would be incinerated wouldn't you? This is induction at it's finest.

I am not trying to dance you in circles here, honestly, I am trying to get you to be as critical as your 6,000+ posts would lead me to believe.

Here is my problem, your whole argument is based around the assumption that I don't know what I am talking about, that whatever they settled on must be the most logical explanation, and that since some website can inductively solve all of the problems with reconciling the video evidence with the official report, it must be true...even though there are many ways of looking at this as well as the evidence that you ignore because you have predetermined that this case is for the most part closed.

I realize that this event fits the conspiracy hierarchy all too well, I just feel after reviewing the evidence that is available...(ie multiple video angles as well as the complete dispatch tape, hundreds of still images, and loads of eyewitness testimony, not to mention the final commision report) unconvinced of the legitimacy of the final report.

Why can't you admit in this situation the most logical answer might be that there might be cause for further investigation by an independant third party if for no other purpose than to settle this sore spot. 50% of surveyed NY'ers don't buy the official report...

neither do many of the firemen who were in the building.

how many bells and whistles need to go off?




I will now take the time to answer the few posts that snuck in while I was typing...

THS-
can't think of any off the top of your head?

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell. I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?

"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them? What did they say? I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?
Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?


See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.

As far as being out of touch with current trends in CT...doubtfull...but I'll let you keep your assumption and ego intact since there is no way to prove you wrong.

[thesyntaxera]

in regards to the photo of people standing in the hole of tower two after the impact...it does exist, and I will post it. It will take sometime to locate online if I don't already have it saved on a disk some where...

[thesyntaxera]

I guess it wasn't that hard...all it took was a google image search

it will not allow me to upload it because of it's size...


911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg

just paste into your browser since I can't post an actual link yet.. and behold a raging inferno, and a woman standing in the hole.

[Morrison's Lament]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above. I don't think you are grasping the complexity of the events in question, the numbers of variables and the fact that it takes even structural engineers quite a bit of calculations to come to any kind of explanation.

Looking at a picture and saying: "It doesn't make sense!" doesn't make it so. Just because a movie audience would reject it as implausible doesn't mean it wouldn't be exactly what would happen in the real world. I mean there are often reports of explosions where people are found relatively unharmed in a nearby tree while their apartment is completely shredded by a gas leak.

--- G.

[richardm]

That picture proves nothing, for reasons already explained above.
Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't even look like a person, except in the sketchiest manner.

Certainly nothing as convincing as this photo - and the fire brigade video taken from a slightly different angle at the same time clearly shows the face to be the end of a burning beam.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/richardm/ghostl13.gif

[The Central Scrutinizer]

iran/contra, blood diamonds, the plot to kill caesar, mccarthyism...read "the people history of the united states by howard zinn, there is over 1000 pages of researched conspiracy in some form or another in there as well...

It should also be pointed out that if one were to buy the whole story of 911 as it is told, then you would be buying into a different conspiracy...the one where a couple of guys in the mountains of afghanistan conspired to bomb the WTC and pentagon with the help of 19 other people...something that would take years to do, and yet, in Osama's confession he clearly states the highjackers didn't know what they would be doing until the day of the attack.


Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

[thesyntaxera]

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

past that in and view it. debunk it, trash it, do whatever, just please watch it all before you respond, and please cite specifics in regards to the flaws of the video.

thank you in advance for you consideration, and please lets keep this on low heat, there is no reason for you all to fly to pieces just because we are talking about the possibility that there might be something to the claims regardless of how many websites debunk them.

[thesyntaxera]

Ummm....no. Iran/Contra was not a conspiracy. It was people breaking the law and they got caught. Don't know what "blood diamonds" are. McCarthyism? LOL!

Is that the best you got?

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

[thesyntaxera]

If the woman in the photo is too small...enlarge it.

[Morrison's Lament]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

[thesyntaxera]

Alex Jones? Dear jumping Jebus...

I just can't bring myself to listen to one more thing he has to say, he's clearly ill and needs help. It's too bad Sacred Cow keeps promoting his rantings, it's quite embarrassing.

--- G.

typical response I suppose, you can label me as raving or ill if you like, I'm just asking you to take a second look and engage in some exploratory conversation.

or you can just quit reading.

I am not asking you to take a side..I just happen to think that if you used deduction instead of induction you might think the same way...or something slightly similar.

[thesyntaxera]

and who is Sacred Cow? I actually haven't read any other threads due to my slow dial up speed and the fact that I have been occupied responding to unfounded claims.

[Morrison's Lament]

You are Alex Jones? If not, then I haven't labeled you as anything at all.

I'm just saying that a cursory glance at his life's work indicates he's off his medication and probably not a good source to be citing if you want to be taken seriously.

Sacred Cow is Bill Hicks' old publishing company, they publish some of my favorite stand-up comedians of all time. And... Alex Jones :(

--- G.

[Morrison's Lament]

Oh, and if Alex Jones' theories about the event and it's causes are going to be part of this debate we have to start talking about the Illuminati, and that will just make things extremely silly.

--- G.

[Morrison's Lament]

Check out Alex arguing that cancer is caused by vaccination:

Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason.

Vaccines are an unnatural phenomena. My guess is that if enough persons said no to immunizations there would be a striking improvement in general health with nature back in the immunizing business instead of man. Having a child vaccinated should be a choice not a requirement. Medical and religious exemptions are permitted by most states.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/201004shouldavoid.htm

The man is unstable and dangerous.

--- G.

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-
was it something other than blind reactionism? do tell.


Yes, and you need to get over yourself.


I am sure there were papers flying all about as they were on the live video, the reason the claim is questionable is because were talking about a thick piece of paper at the exact location of the explosion leaping out of the plane, out of the building, and then landing several blocks away...this is no cause for concern from you?


Why is so hard for you to understandthat a pretected piece of paper might have survived? Explain to me how this is a problem when you can accept that unlaminated paper from an office that was engulfed and destroyed is able to survive?


"Another example of poor thinking: Why do you think it is hard to pilot a plane that is already in the air? A single question to a commerical pilot, or even an experienced amatuer would have shown this claim to be complete and utter nonsense. But I guess doing that would mean you lose a bullet point, eh?"

Have you asked them?


Yes.


What did they say?


Pretty much what any person would expect: Its not that hard to fly a plane once it is off the ground, especially if you don't care about: Turbulance, time, FAA regulations, the comfort of the passengers, and so forth.


I guess an amatuer pilot could bring a 757 to feet off the ground without blowing over everything in it's path?


What are you babbling about? Is this the plane hitting the Pentagon? If so you could not be more wrong.


Is that what you are saying? Or are you making the guess that they would say such things?


I have asked pilots. Get over yourself.


See I thought I would come here and find some people who actually had something to debunk the conspiracy theory with besides someone else inductive approach to reasoning. What I am beginning to notice is that of the people who have so far replied, none of you is capable of offering a more logical explanation. If you could you would have. Instead, you hide behind semantics, ad hominem, poor reasoning, and a single website that suffers from the same thing.


No, we are offering, you are just not listening. You are substituting whining and complaining for counterarguements.

[Morrison's Lament]

It's become clear that the devil's advocate is more than a little into his role ;)

--- G.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

the best I got??? isn't people talking secretly to commit illegal arms exchanges to fund death squads a conspiracy?

you have the internet...look up the words "blood diamonds" in google.

McCarthyism lol? Not really funny when you consider how many lives were ruined at the behest of the Red Scare, on top of the outrageous claims made by McCarthy against fellow americans.

Could you answer a few questions?

/Start woo-woo bleever check

1) Who killed JFK?
2) On July 20, 1969, did a US astronaut set foot on the moon?
3) Did George W Bush conspire with Diebold to rig the 2004 election?
4) Does the Illuminati, working closely with Jewish bankers and the Trilateral Commision, secretly rule the world?

/end check

[thesyntaxera]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

My point initially was to try and sort out the problem with this particular conspiracy theory.

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse. The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else. Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.

In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?


Why not make sure your case was air tight?

Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

[Year Zero]

Why don't you all step back and quit reading too far into what I am saying, your paranoia about me is starting to look very comparable to the very things you are trying to discredit.

Paranoia? Who do you think you're fooling? I've been debating with advocates of these conspiracy theories for about six months now on another forum. They are FAR more convincing than you, though they use what are basically better refined versions of the arguments you are produceing.


There is no agenda other than a personal one. What you might have gathered is that I am trying to find legitimate sources to debunk these allegations. I am not in support of any view one way or the other. You are all reacting, and looking for things that aren't there when it comes to things like me being comparable to Alex Jones or others of his like...your gathering an awful lot from a few posts.

You do realize that several of your claims have already been fully debunked as they are full of mistakes regarding the simple details.


What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise. As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.

911Myths is no better than the conspiracy sites? Explain why. Also explain why you continue to ignore refutations of your claims on here, even simply refutations of critical details, by myself and other posters.



In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?

Actually many of those "leads" are dead ends because they were concocted by people who have absolutely no knowledge of the fields involved e.g. engineering and demolitions.


and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?

Once again, here's another claim that has been debunked literally years ago. There are more than five frames of the Pentagon. There are pictures of plane debris at the Pentagon:

http://snopes.com/rumors/images/debris.jpg

[IMG]http://snopes.com/rumors/images/pent2.jpg[IMG]

Sixteen feet wide?


You DO realize that the black boxes were recovered inside the debris right?


Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?

Probably not proof of demolition charges and remote control planes.


Why not make sure your case was air tight?

It's not a matter of being "air tight". It's a matter of the conspiracy theories not having an actual case to begin with.


Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

Gee, it seems every time they get dispelled by FEMA, NIST, the Port Authority, etc, someone just calls it "disinformation".

[kookbreaker]

What it seems you haven't realized is that even though there isn't enough evidence to say conspiracy, there isn't enough public evidence to convince one otherwise.


Except for the all the evidence pointing to the fact that there was one.


As I pointed out earlier, this 911myths.com is no better than any letsroll, or infoclearinghouse.


Your personal opinion, and not a well supported one. You sem to base it on the idea that since he does not utterly destroy everything in his site it is somehow a failure. That is a very binary thinking process.


The sum of the skepticism amounts to faithfully accepting what the given story is because why would it be anything else.


No. The sum of skepticism is to look at the conpsiracy picture as a whole and realise that it does not make a lick of sense.


Every explanation offered only leaves more open for conspiracy nuts to pick away at...ie they draw conclusions based on testimony, not evidence, they rationalize a bias in favor of the offcial story regardless of all the circumstantial evidence laying all over place...there shouldn't be any ammo for a conspiracist to latch onto in the first place.


Guess what: THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! If you understood how the conspiracy mind works, you will realise that even if every aspect is covered, then the conpiracists will simply invent stuff. If you give me any conspiracy theory, I can find things that were outright inventions of the CTs to support their theory.


In the end, what I was getting at is that there are a million leads that could have been followed, why follow these particular ones to reach the official conclusion?


Dead end leads can often be seen to be junk from a long way away.


and still more questions..like why only 5 frames of the pentagon, why not make them all public, or at least ones that don't compromise national security...whats that? they all do? all but those 5? ok...ummm there isn't one single angle that shows a plane? Why? Not one single frame?


You assume these things exist, or were not destroyed. And yes, the Pentagon is a heavily secured structure, sometimes you don't want to let folks know where the security camera are.

And to what end? A few frames to convince paranoid morons who make claims like 'no plane wreckage' and other nonsense? These bozos would ignore or reject any such shots in any case.


Whats on the 28 pages of the Comission report?

Why not make sure your case was air tight?


See above.


Why not clear up any rumors by pursuing these leads and dispelling them with public fact?

Becuase most of the 'leads' are complete and utter crap, and anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at the evidence, or looks deeper than the 'Hunt the Boeing' pages without a CT agenda can see they are crap.

"Dispelling" does not work, in fact it merely fuels the CTs.

[thesyntaxera]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...

You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.

If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form. Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?

Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?

Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?

Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.

in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.

Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

[kookbreaker]

kookbreaker-year 0

Are this the bits of wisdom that are supposed to just blast me out of the water?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29

"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises (assumption or hypothesis) of an argument support the conclusion, but do not ensure it. It is to ascribe properties or relations to types based on limited observations of particular tokens; or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

"Formal logic as most people learn it is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial assumptions. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is obviously wrong, but may have been thought correct in Europe until the settlement of Australia. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid. (An argument in formal logic is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises of the argument to be true whilst the conclusion is false.)"

the entire case either for or against conspiracy in this case is based in the world of induction. I have stated this many times...


Pwah! Conspriacy theories are not based on anything but a handful of carefully selected facts that manage to ignore the realities of the world. There's nothing inductive or logical about them whatsoever!


You should know this is flawed reasoning, and you should know this is why conspiracy hacks continue to thrive.


Conspriacy theoreis thrive because people want to be 'special' in knowing things they think the rest of the world does not know. They then spread the arguement using ignorance of reality as their tool.


If a simple and straight forward deductive investigation was performed there would be no questions. Thus there would be no place for a legitimate conspiracy to form.


Nonsense. In every field where there are conspiracy theories, where there has been a complete investigation, the conspriacy theorists just ignore it and make up their own details


Sure your not going to stop everyone, and you don't need to. This is a country that allows freedom of speech. Why silence them and give them more reason to be paranoid?


Whose silencing them? Not me.


Again these are not my claims, these a common claims that survive on the internet long after being made, I am not a proponent of any of them. Except that the official story doesn't add up, and that more information needs to be released to satisfy the public.

Whats your problem with that? Is it because I can guarantee you that any claim you can make in favor of the offcial tale can be refuted? Is it because I shot down your shoddy right brain analogies?


Don't flatter yourself, you haven't shot down anything. Your 'common claims' are nonsense and you refused to support them with any arguements whatsoever.


Or is it that you simply would rather engage in intellectual swordplay than have an intelligent discussion with me on this subject?


I'm waiting for you to stop bobbing and weaving about imaginary investigatiosn that will somehow magically stop all the CTs and get down to brass tacks!


Your on a internet forum, the only thing your proving is how close-minded skepticism has made you...


**YAWN**


you fail to realize that your religious adherence to the skeptical ideology that you favor is just as bad as the so called conspiracy guru's adherence to the fantastic. You are not doing any better of a job in other words, so quite whining about them.


In this thread I haven't done much of a job because the only CT proponent is inept. Quit argueing the standard-issue-woowoo line of "You are closed minded" and get on with it!


in the words given to me from one of you...get over yourselves, and your self-righteous indignation.


You really are not very good at this, are you?


Now, can we talk about this logically for a second, or do you want to keep riding on the semantic express train that only goes in circles?

I've been waiting on you. So far, the only thing you have done to support your argumeent is link to a complete crank's video and claim that 911myths doesn't do what you want them to do.

[Ed]

The way you have answered all of the claims put out by the 911 conspiracy community is with one to two sentences of drivel that contain no relevant facts or data to lead me to any alternate conclusions..which is what I was asking for...it also reveals an apparent lack of knowledge on your part regarding that which you claim is so easily debunkable....don't you think being familiar with the claims would make you better equipt to answer the questions?

I think that it is generally pointless to refute CTs point by point, the feast is too movable, so to speak. I prefer to take more of a meta view.

I am going to present one fact against which all CT's must be judged for reasonableness.

The President of The United States of America could not keep a blow job performed in the Oval Office secret.

The reality of this fact calls into serious question CTs that require the involvement of more than 2 people. For the sake of not looking absolutely stupid it seems to me that CT proponents need to explain, in detail, how the one was displayed for all the world to see and how the other, with many more moving parts, was not. I don't care about jet fuel or holes in the Pentagon or unidentified arabs. I want to know how the president, with his power and authority, cannot get a private hummer when the knocking down of major buildings can be performed with the awareness of only a few who have crystaline insight. Then we can proceed.

[CurtC]

thesyntaxera, I'm not a philosopher, but let me see if I understand your point. Take the example of the reports of molten metal after the TT collapse. Someone has come forward with this assertion, and skeptics have pointed out that we don't really know that it's true, and it's not very plausible. I think what you're saying is that since we can't definitively prove that there was no molten metal, we're using "inductive" logic. Is that right? I can see that our case would be stronger if we could prove there was no molten metal, but is that reasonable to expect? It seems to me that someone who asserts a conspiracy has the burden of proof on him. And skeptics have pointed out that the "evidence" they have falls far short.

For example, the video you linked to called Loose Change starts off with the flashes when the airliners hit the WTC buildings, asserting how they're mysterious. He goes into great detail about the one best view we have, and says that the flash happened before the nose hits the building. But it's obvious to even me that the nose is hitting the building at the time of the flash, we just can't make it out in the video because the very front is in the shade of the building and it blends in. The part he says is the nose is really just the part of the fuselage that's still in sunlight - you can easily tell by looking at the distance in front of the wings compared to other video frames. This is just in the first ten minutes of the hour-long video. If he starts off with blatant lies, why do I want to watch the rest?

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, I'm not a philosopher, but let me see if I understand your point. Take the example of the reports of molten metal after the TT collapse. Someone has come forward with this assertion, and skeptics have pointed out that we don't really know that it's true, and it's not very plausible. I think what you're saying is that since we can't definitively prove that there was no molten metal, we're using "inductive" logic. Is that right? I can see that our case would be stronger if we could prove there was no molten metal, but is that reasonable to expect? It seems to me that someone who asserts a conspiracy has the burden of proof on him. And skeptics have pointed out that the "evidence" they have falls far short.

For example, the video you linked to called Loose Change starts off with the flashes when the airliners hit the WTC buildings, asserting how they're mysterious. He goes into great detail about the one best view we have, and says that the flash happened before the nose hits the building. But it's obvious to even me that the nose is hitting the building at the time of the flash, we just can't make it out in the video because the very front is in the shade of the building and it blends in. The part he says is the nose is really just the part of the fuselage that's still in sunlight - you can easily tell by looking at the distance in front of the wings compared to other video frames. This is just in the first ten minutes of the hour-long video. If he starts off with blatant lies, why do I want to watch the rest?

Good points. You highlighted a couple interesting things, yes you are correct in the literal sense of the word regarding induction. My point so far has been that every item a skeptic has used to debunk the conspiracy suffers from the same conflict of logic that one will find in the conspiracy circles. A skeptic disagrees with the notion of conspiracy based on the inference they make from the same evidence that is available with a bias leaning toward debasement of the conspiracy circles findings. Since the entire process is one of thought, as well as research, you are limited in the amount of investigation you can do, which ultimately leads one to utilize induction, which is unacceptable when investigating a mass homicide.

What I have gathered from the other posts on this thread is that it is more logical to believe the official story. What I am trying to get across is that without public access to all official evidence and a thorough investigation no one will ever know the complete truth.

It is in the interests of all to know. Considering the implications, as well as the players involved in the case of 911 I think there is more than enough cause for concern in the minds of most people of average education regarding things like world politics, history of foreign policy, and so on.

I heard a quote once:
"I just want the american people to understand that it's entirely understandable, that the american people could not possibly understand."

It makes sense in the context of what the average citizen knows and thinks about the government and our place on the globe. All of this is interrelated obvisouly because this event is literally the single biggest thing that will probably happen in my lifetime besides the far remote possibility of a greater war.

To be realistic we do live in a society where the power resides in the few, and the few are connected to the other few who are in power, and these few that are collectively in power are members of other international regulating organizations which is sort of an over arching regulatory body for the world.

isn't that like...every conspiracy that has ever been told?

Yes, and no. No in that all of the phoney terms that have been created to explain all this ridiculous nonsense are not true. And yes in that we live in a world that is like that.

It's just government as usual..so what if they go to Bohemian Grove, or are Skull and Bones members, or masons...none of that matters because those are just mysterious traditional things the few in power have done for ages.

but I digress.


Does someone who asserts a conspiracy have the burden of proof? I don't think it's a matter of having it or not, it's about not having all the information in the first place.

Why watch the rest of the video...because, in this particular case, they lay out a no frills "what does it all mean" montage of video and testimonial evidence that in detail explains how the entire thing could have been pulled off. It gives specific and traceable sources of information, that at least could be investigated and debunked one at a time.

Some asked why try and debunk the evidence of a CT adherent, if you'll never convince them...and the answer is simple...because you have to!!!!

IT'S CALLED DEDUCTION!!!!

I think I have layed out a fairly reasonable set of reasons why this is an important matter worth debunking....because whatever happened is being obscured by all the ravenous skeptics and CT followers who are too eager to figure it all out themselves.

In truth all Loose Change does is say basically that...there is a lot of loose change in this case.

So I ask again:

Why not one frame of the pentagon plane? I'm sure one single frame will not compromise national security, as far as "protecting camera locations" you can clearly see all the cameras that dangle from the outside in many publicized photo's. There is even the unreleased video from the gas station. One frame from that maybe? All we need is one picture of a plane.

Why not release some of the 6,000+ classified photo's that were sealed during the investigation?

Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.

Why didn't they test for explosives? As far as I know, no such test was ever done, but I am not certain, if there is documentation and testimony of negative results on explosives then where is it?

Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

[Ed]

Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

Where is Judge Crater? Where is D. B. Cooper?

What about the presidential blow job?

[richardm]

All we need is one picture of a plane.
...
Why didn't they test for explosives?

So are you suggesting that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon?

Have a look at this page, (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html) which includes pictures of the aircraft wreckage outside the Pentagon.

What do you think now?

If there was no plane, what happened to the people on the flight?

[Year Zero]

Good points. You highlighted a couple interesting things, yes you are correct in the literal sense of the word regarding induction. My point so far has been that every item a skeptic has used to debunk the conspiracy suffers from the same conflict of logic that one will find in the conspiracy circles.

Absolutely wrong. The skeptics here don't believe the conspiracy theory because the conspiracy theorists haven't provided enough evidence, or even a coherent HYPOTHESIS of their claims of demolitions, remote control planes, etc. Sorry, but the logical fallacy is on the side of conspiracy advocates. If they understood logic they would know that the burden of proof is on them and they can't advance their theory of demolition by making unqualified claims about "holes" they personnally see in the footage and coverage they have personally taken in.



A skeptic disagrees with the notion of conspiracy based on the inference they make from the same evidence that is available with a bias leaning toward debasement of the conspiracy circles findings.

Absolutely nonsense. If anyone attaches bias to something its the conspiracy theorists. I've debated with these people constantly. They quote some expert or eyewitness; then you find that same witness or expert saying something that totally contradicts the theory- and they want you to ignore the part that doesn't help their theory! You give them government reports filed by NIST engineers that ACTUALLY INVESTIGATED the site and they just pass them off as being "laughable", "idiotic", written by "so-called experts", etc. They have absolutely no qualifications in engineering but they know more about the buildings and how they collapse than engineers that actually physically investigated these things.

Now who is biased again?



Since the entire process is one of thought, as well as research, you are limited in the amount of investigation you can do, which ultimately leads one to utilize induction, which is unacceptable when investigating a mass homicide.

You are describing the method of the CTs, not skeptics here. Followers of CTs are people that take things at face value because they believe that all the information they personally received is the same amount of information that everyone else has. So if they have never heard that many small personal affects were found in the Flight 93 plane crash or that small objects can survive aerial explosions under extreme conditions- they might look at the passport being found as something suspicious. If they had the full story, they would not.


What I have gathered from the other posts on this thread is that it is more logical to believe the official story. What I am trying to get across is that without public access to all official evidence and a thorough investigation no one will ever know the complete truth.

A great deal of evidence has been presented that this was a terrorist attack. No evidence has been presented that it was an "inside job" involving remote-control planes and demolitions.


It is in the interests of all to know. Considering the implications, as well as the players involved in the case of 911 I think there is more than enough cause for concern in the minds of most people of average education regarding things like world politics, history of foreign policy, and so on.

Yes, as long as these people do REAL research, seek out qualified opinions, and above all, make sure they have an accurate account of what actually happened on 9-11 and what investigations came after.



It makes sense in the context of what the average citizen knows and thinks about the government and our place on the globe. All of this is interrelated obvisouly because this event is literally the single biggest thing that will probably happen in my lifetime besides the far remote possibility of a greater war.

So was the Pearl Harbor event, carried out by Japanese, not Americans in fake Zeros.


To be realistic we do live in a society where the power resides in the few, and the few are connected to the other few who are in power, and these few that are collectively in power are members of other international regulating organizations which is sort of an over arching regulatory body for the world.

isn't that like...every conspiracy that has ever been told?

No, it's not like other conspiracies becasue in conspiracy theories, no matter how massive the claims, the government never gets caught, the NWO just keeps marching on, they always have everything under control just when it looks like they are having problems(Iraq insurgency).


It's just government as usual..so what if they go to Bohemian Grove, or are Skull and Bones members, or masons...none of that matters because those are just mysterious traditional things the few in power have done for ages.

but I digress.

Unless... What if all these claims about the membership of these secret societies is...NOT ACTUALLY TRUE?



Does someone who asserts a conspiracy have the burden of proof? I don't think it's a matter of having it or not, it's about not having all the information in the first place.

Yes, they have the burden of proof. I also notice that they don't carry it well because when I pointed out a massive historical error to a Skull and Bones theorist he actually thought I was supporting his theory.


Why watch the rest of the video...because, in this particular case, they lay out a no frills "what does it all mean" montage of video and testimonial evidence that in detail explains how the entire thing could have been pulled off. It gives specific and traceable sources of information, that at least could be investigated and debunked one at a time.

We've SEEN this stuff before. They will never bring about more credible evidence because they have a limited amount of material to work with. They can't present evidence of their missiles, remote control planes, demo charges, so they need to rely on pointing out "holes" in the official theory and the innuendo of alleged "unreleased" photographs.



I think I have layed out a fairly reasonable set of reasons why this is an important matter worth debunking....because whatever happened is being obscured by all the ravenous skeptics and CT followers who are too eager to figure it all out themselves.


Why not one frame of the pentagon plane? I'm sure one single frame will not compromise national security, as far as "protecting camera locations" you can clearly see all the cameras that dangle from the outside in many publicized photo's. There is even the unreleased video from the gas station. One frame from that maybe? All we need is one picture of a plane.

We have eyewitnesses that saw the plane, we have a shot of the plane actually hitting the building, and we have the fact that there are lightpoles knocked down from the plane coming in. Then we have the fact that the PASSENGER DNA was found in the wreckage, plane material was found, and the flight recorders were recovered.


Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.

What the hell would this prove?


Why didn't they test for explosives? As far as I know, no such test was ever done, but I am not certain, if there is documentation and testimony of negative results on explosives then where is it?

They didn't test for explosives because of all the eyewitnesses telling them they saw a PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.


Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?

Because he is most likely hiding in one of two places that the US has not and most likely will not go into due to a risk of massive casulties and serious implications for Pakistan.



I notice that you put out some charges in the beginning, and asked us to debunk them. As we did that, rather than admit when they are debunked, admit that they are full of simple factual errors, etc. , you prefer to go off on a philosophical tangent about this.

[kookbreaker]

Why not perform heat tests on the exact same metal, using the exact same amount? I'm sure modern science can recreate the situation pretty accurately with all the data we can collect about the day itself, weather, wind speed/direction included.


NIST has pretty much been doing just that for a couple of years now, at least.


Why didn't they test for explosives?


The same reason they did not test for Leprachauns. There was no evidence of such being used. The CT crowd came up with that story months later, after the clean up. When they were repairing and cleaning up the Pentagon, the concerns of a feew cranks was probably not foremost on their minds.


Why hasn't bin Laden been arrested or found dead?


Because he is very good at hiding, and is in an area sympathetic to him, and with horrible terrain to search. Keep in mind how long it took to find the Olympic bomber, and that was on US soil


If these questions were answered there would be no need for quarrel.

Very naive. CT'ers have a long history of ignoring answers if they down fit their puzzle. Not to mention just outright making stuff up.

[love]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

These two things seem to be anomolous to me in a building that collapsed due to fire.

Thanks.

[Year Zero]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

The towers were not in "free-fall". Debris can clearly be seen falling faster than the towers. Also, the determination of the rate of collapse varies by as much as 8 seconds; it's based on the start of the collapse, the estimated height of the rubble pile, and the fact that a massive cloud obscured the towers at a certain point.

Guess which group of people likes to use the SHORTER amount of time for the collapse?


Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

These two things seem to be anomolous to me in a building that collapsed due to fire.

Thanks.

1. Who said there was "little rubble"? Little rubble compared to what?

2. The building did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to its construction coupled with a plane impact coupled with fire.

[delphi_ote]

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

http://archive.aiesec.ws/www.aieseconline.net/blogs/images/911/nyDevastation.gif
http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/EM/Images/wtc10.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/9-11/rubble2.jpg
http://hangoverguide.com/factbook/pics/ny_rubble.jpg
http://www.janeek.com/images/temp/twcflag.jpg
http://www.archive-news.net/Photos/911/06Destruction/rubble1e.jpg

What are you talking about? Were you asleep that day?

[Spidey13]

Can anyone explain why the WTC towers collapsed in free-fall? (This can be determined by measuring the speed of collapse.)

Not sure what you mean by this. There was nothing pushing the buildings down, so why would they not fall this way?

Also can you explain why there was so little rubble? In particular why there was such a lack of pieces of concrete.

I don't get this assertion, either. I distinctly remember watching firefighters sifting though MOUNDS of rubble looking for survivors.

Edited because I'm an idiot.

[love]

Thanks for your replies. I am not sure this clears this up for me.

1. Who said there was "little rubble"? Little rubble compared to what?
Little rubble compared to the amount of building. How does a 110 story building leave such a small pile of debris after it has fallen over?

2. The building did not collapse due to fire. It collapsed due to its construction coupled with a plane impact coupled with fire.
Thanks for that clarification. I'm not sure it explains the anomalies.

delphi_ote,
Thanks for the pictures, they demonstrate what I am talking about. Lots of metal and dust, very little in the way of pieces of concrete.

Not sure what you mean by this. There was nothing pushing the buildings down, so why would they not fall this way?

The strange thing is why did the supporting metal and concrete structure go from giving enough resistance to support the weight of the building to giving so very little resistance? I still find this anomolous if you add on eight seconds to the collapse time.

I don't get this assertion, either. I distinctly remember watching firefighters sifting though MOUNDS of rubble looking for survivors.

Look at the pictures, I see girders covered in concrete. Where are the concrete pieces. Why did the concrete all turn to dust?

Thanks

[Garrette]

So you're suggesting that a mysterious concrete-eating substance was introduced into the building, in all areas where concrete might be, as opposed to planes hitting the building?

When you say the fall is anomalous, please be specific and reference how fast you think it should have fallen and on what maths you base your conjecture.

P.S. There was a hell of a lot of debris. There was a large underground area beneath the WTC; the collaps filled it in and compressed it. And remember that a skyscraper is not solid through-and-through; lots of space in it for things like, oh, say, people and ventilation systems.

[Ed]

The strange thing is why did the supporting metal and concrete structure go from giving enough resistance to support the weight of the building to giving so very little resistance? I still find this anomolous if you add on eight seconds to the collapse time.



Take a metal coat hanger.

Bend it back and forth.

At some point, the structure begins breaking down and it becomes very easy to bend. See the connection?

You really have to think about these things a bit. Just because it was the WTC does not mean that materials suddenly take on a magical quality.

The girders could support the weight then they were compromised and then they couldn't.

[Starthinker]

Please remember much of the concrete was pulverized. Remember that big cloud that engulfed NY when the towers went down? Pulverized concrete dust.

Also, the building collapsed due to it's structural integrity being compromised. This has been explained many times and in better ways than I can but here goes. The building doesn't just stand on girders going up and down, those girders are in turn supported by the floors and other horizontal structures. Girders tend to twist and bend when the horizontal supports are taken away. As several floors burned away the vertical supports didn't have anything preventing them from twisting and bending and so they gave way. Picture a weight on top of 4 tall pipes. One pipe can bow in the middle and the whole structure gives way. Now put cross pieces connecting the pipes at regular intervals and the pipes are prevented from bowing in the middle.

Or just look at the nearest TV tower. Notice all the little triangular pieces that tie the three up-and-down poles together? Remove them from a section and the tower will collapse. Kinda sorta the same thing.

There's a very good special on the Discovery Channel that they air every once in a while that shows this very precisely with computer graphics. Once you see it, it's hard to NOT understand what happened.

[love]

Take a metal coat hanger.

Bend it back and forth.

At some point, the structure begins breaking down and it becomes very easy to bend. See the connection?

You really have to think about these things a bit. Just because it was the WTC does not mean that materials suddenly take on a magical quality.

The girders could support the weight then they were compromised and then they couldn't.

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

[Ed]

Little rubble compared to the amount of building. How does a 110 story building leave such a small pile of debris after it has fallen over?

It wasn't "small". It was enormous. It took months to clear it away. Why do you use the word "small"? You do realize that the scale of the pictures covers acres, right?


Thanks for the pictures, they demonstrate what I am talking about. Lots of metal and dust, very little in the way of pieces of concrete.

The outside of the WTC was largely aluminium. Why do you think that there should be more concrete? What do you mean by "very little"?

Look at the pictures, I see girders covered in concrete. Where are the concrete pieces. Why did the concrete all turn to dust?

Girders are not covered in concrete. What gives you that idea? Rebar is covered in concrete.

[Ed]

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

Not sudden. What exactly were you doing on 9/11? This is not really a hard concept.

[kookbreaker]

Are you for real?

We didn't do "compromise" when I was in science class. Is this the magical quality you are referring to?

How did all the material in the building suddenly gain this "compromised" quality all at the same time?

You really have to think about these things a bit.

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

[Garrette]

And if Ed's explanation was too general for you, then please comment on Starthinker's and kookbreakers'.

Then provide the maths I asked you about.

Thanks so very much.

[Ed]

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

And the supports were heated differentially thus shifting the load more and more to the point where there was a catastrophic failure.

Think about falling thru ice. The integrity of the ice fails bit by bit until the load is too much for the remaing ice to bear. Simple.

[Glite]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.

[Year Zero]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever made a office building collapse that fast ever, and there have been many office building fires in many buildings that were built at the same time as the WTC. Another thing they could have mentioned is that this wasn't the first time a plane struck an office building. I will have to look for the source later, but I believe there was an account of a wwII bomber flying low on a foggy day in manhattan when it struck the Empire State Building. No long lasting inferno...just a giant hole in the side of the building...911'ers don't even mention this either..."

as far as i know, the world trade center buildings are unique in design, where the floors are supported mainly by a structure in the center of the building. this design is going to collapse in a particular manner under such circumstances. i would also say that a WWII bomber would have less fuel and less volitile fuel than a modern day passenger jet.


Right, it was radically different and from what I here it was actually a bad design; a lot of wallboard was used instead of concrete. According to one engineer who designed the building(I believe his name is Robertson), concrete was not a structural element in the building save for the floor decks. I know this because a fellow debunker actually e-mailed the guy to confirm this several weeks ago.

[Garrette]

I do hope Love hasn't taken off on us.

He/She has already started another thread after posting here, but she hasn't responded to comments there, either.

[love]

Compromised = When steel is heated, it loses strength long before it reaches its melting point. When it reaches the point where its compromised strength is weaker than the load it carries, it fails.

After that, it is potential energy converting into kintetic energy.

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

[Year Zero]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?


It doesn't have to happen throughout the whole building.

[kookbreaker]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.


Did I say all strength? NO! But it does not have to.


OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

It doesn't need to. Why would you think that it does?

[Ashles]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?
What did you not understand about the TV Tower analogy? When structural integrity fails then an entire building can fall in one go.

And what do you think happened to all the concrete?
It's obvious to us what happened to it all (hint, it was lying in huge piles and became huge dust clouds that covered everything in the surrounding area), but you obviously disagree -so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

BTW this is all assuming you aren't just joking.

[Psiload]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Uhh... it didn't.

Only the steel that was subjected to the intense heat of the jet fuel fire lost it's strength. The inevitable and predictable failure of this steel led to a collapse of the the floor trusses directly involved(see pretty moving picture below), which pancaked down and subjected the floors below to stresses they could not bear, and they collapsed onto the floor below, and they in turn collapsed on the floors below, etc... a chain reaction which brought the entire building(s) down.

This process, from beginning to end, can clearly be seen taking place in the video records of the event, unless of course, you're too preoccupied trying to spot the black helicopters, or your tinfoil hat has slipped down over your eyes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/images/coll_truss.gif

[Ed]

It loses all its strength? Really, wow.

OK, so how did this happen throughout the whole building at the same time?

Maybe you ought to read the last few posts.

[Ed]

"I am no expert, but I have seen a few house fires, and they don't even collapse all at once when the whole place is engulfed...in fact no fire has ever m