• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

Year Zero

Critical Thinker
Y
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
330
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.
 
Year Zero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
MRC_Hans said:
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.
Click to expand...
[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]
 
David Swidler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
MRC_Hans said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Year Zero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kookbreaker said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Year Zero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
kookbreaker said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
JLam said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom