Debunking 9/11 hoax

[Bill EE]

Multiple government agencies working together and not one of them issuing a press release about what a wonderful job they did :)

[Kesh]

One Asshole on GLP wrote:

The biggest blow to the "intense fire" bringing the buildings down was the woman standing in the opening leaning against the steel that was so hot to have caused structural failure. She had long hair without a singe mark on her. If the metal was hot enough to cause failure she would not be able to stand near it let alone lean on it.

I want to know what video shows this detail from 80 stories way?

Stupidity - GLP Trademark

I've seen the pictures these people are talking about. This "long haired woman" is pretty obviously just a chunk of debris, fabric caught on a chunk of metal, waving in the wind and smoke. Claiming it's a person is like claiming that cloud that looks like a puppy really is a puppy.

[Bill EE]

Really - I wish I had known that. Makes sense - have a link?

[Kesh]

Ah, my mistake. It seems the conspiracists have moved on from the original photo I saw, to a new couple of 'em:

This picture DOES show at least one, possible two people, one whom appears unconscious or dead.

Video from a different angle, showing the standing person waving.

Note, though, that they're standing below and outside the areas that are on fire, at what would have been the impact point for the leading tip of the plane's wing. In other words, metal structure that they were touchingwasn't on fire, and wouldn't be at anywhere near the temperatures that were blazing in the middle of the building, where the support superstructure was.

I believe a lot of the "how could she be touching metal at the temperatures the government said" nonsense comes from thinking the building's superstructure was on the outside. Rather, the problem came from the fact that the "core" of the building was the only serious support for the whole tower.

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and other common architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then unusual approach in its construction— instead of the typical high-rise infrastructure utilizing building-wide rows of heavy columns within walls, each tower was essentially a hollow steel tube staked to the earth by a cross-sectionally narrow array of columns running up the building core. As secondary supports, each tower had 240 thin steel columns sheathing the facade, a signature feature that allowed the number of internal columns to be very small for such huge structures.

Thus, when the metal support struts on the inside core were subjected to tremendous heat, the affected floors simply could not hold up the weight of what was above them. And keep in mind that the "secondary" support on the outer walls had already been breached on multiple floors by the impact itself. Since there was nothing on the "outside" to support the weight, the floor gave way and everything else came down on it.

Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the building's concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping. This placed additional stress on the bunched core columns, which themselves were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable

The stuff those people were on wasn't what was superheated... that was back in the "core" of the building! They weren't standing near any of the metal that was at near-melting temperatures... in fact, they were as far as they could get from it!

In other words, it's more ignorance spread as "proof" of the conspiracy.

If you want a lot of woo-woo links about the events of the day, hit this forum where I found the video link.

[Bill EE]

Well now that this plane crashed in Europe:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=139711&topic=3&showdate=8/15/05

All of a sudden cell phones work on airliners and the fact that someone was able to send a SMS message means the official story is bunk. Of course since passengers made calls from the planes on 9/11 and that can not happen, then the official story is bunk.

[Мастер]

Consistency doesn't seem to be a woo-woo strong point, but the fact that everything proves a conspiracy is definitely a hallmark - if the moon landing experienced all kinds of technical glitches, that proves it was impossible and therefore was faked, and if it proceeds flawlessly, that also proves it was faked...

Edit - oops, forgot what topic I was posting to. Extraneous material deleted...

[sakuraba]

here are some Cters common arguments:

They say that planes can be remotely controlled and the government said they couldn't. A link:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

List of witnesses:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/

Why according to them they are not reliable:

Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway:

Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.

Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."

Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.

Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.

Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.

Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.

Thay also say it was impossible to make phone calls from the aircraft at that time.

[Bill EE]

You know - I have never hear a government official come out and say that the your can not fly a plane by remote control. I would love to see that tape! How about saying planes can not be flown autonomously? No? Man the DOD must be mad!

Let's skip that silliness - their (the conspiracy theorists) biggest problem is that they (besides being absolutely wrong) can not hold on to one story for the theory. We have [strike]remote controlled[/strike] sorry Hologram planes with [strike]controlled demolitions [/strike] sorry [strike]scalar[/strike] sorry micro-nuclear weapons actually causing the damage. Their next biggest problem is they don't understand engineering - they bring up the Empire State Building and the B25 - look, it just hung up in the building and did not exploded. Amazing - I am really glad that that a B-25 did not bring down the Emprie State Building but:

a) A B-25 does not have the speed, mass, or load capacity of a 757
b) It doesn't carry nearly the same fuel load
c) What is the Empire State Building cladded with? Glass panels on steel framing like WTC? No - Indian Limestone and Granite with chrome-nickel steel.

[Мастер]

here are some Cters common arguments:

They say that planes can be remotely controlled and the government said they couldn't. A link:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

List of witnesses:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/

Why according to them they are not reliable:

Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway:

Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.

Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."

Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.

Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.

Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.

Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.

Thay also say it was impossible to make phone calls from the aircraft at that time.

So these people are unreliable for these reasons? If they are right-wing, that means they are unreliable, if they are left-wing, that also means they are unrealiable. If they are centrist, I guess this would demonstrate their unreliability also? One is reminded of the fool from King Lear, who was whipped if he lied, and whipped if he told the truth, and sometimes whipped if he held his peace...

[Мастер]

a) A B-25 does not have the speed, mass, or load capacity of a 757
b) It doesn't carry nearly the same fuel load
c) What is the Empire State Building cladded with? Glass panels on steel framing like WTC? No - Indian Limestone and Granite with chrome-nickel steel.

I suppose if a bridge washes away in a flood, the flood must be a cover-up unless every other bridge washes away also...

Nice avatar, BTW. And your new rank is much better than the one that was discussed earlier...

[sakuraba]

A 'missile" being fired at the pentagon:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/naudet/woolworth.php

Another link:

http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

From this link:


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/s ... 2094c.html

They extract this as "evidence":

At one point in the radio dispatches, there is a report of a "possible missile launching from the Woolworth Building," a landmark a few blocks away.

Another person called out: "They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Another link talking about the missile from Woolworth:

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin ... php?t=4035

other one with discussion of it:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297359.shtml

All claimed as evidence.

[sakuraba]

Here are some other gem of theirs:

http://www.funlol.com/funpages/911-conspiracy.html#Main

It has points such as the videos confiscated and not released, claims of missile and other aircraft, the size of the pentagon hole, lack of debris. watch it and you will see.

[sakuraba]

Calif mother protesting against bush claimed to support the 911 conspiracy theory:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 2008120327

This argued nowadays as evidence:

8/16/05: MD-82 Crashes-TONS OF DEBRIS!


160 Killed in Venezuela Plane Crash

...As the plane developed problems just after 3 a.m., the Colombian pilot radioed to a nearby airport in western Venezuela requesting permission for an emergency landing, saying both engines had failed. But within 10 minutes, the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 fell into a steep descent and broke apart on impact, Venezuelan officials said. Residents reported hearing an explosion.

Rescue workers search the wreckage of the West Caribbean Airways MD-82 aircraft in Machiques, about 100 miles (161 km) southwest of Maracaibo, Venezuela, August 16, 2005.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A 'missile" being fired at the pentagon:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/naudet/woolworth.php

Ok, a couple things...

1) That's one of the WTC towers, not the Pentagon.
2) Maybe it's just me, but what kind of missle, other than the BGM-71 TOW is that short? I mean, even with the motion blur it isn't very long.

The missile theory is such non-sensical bullshit.

8/16/05: MD-82 Crashes-TONS OF DEBRIS!

Wow. A plane crash that left tons a debris. What's their point? Have they ever bothered looking at pictures of plane crashes? They vary from crash-to-crash, depending on the circumstances of the accident.

If they think the amount of debris is indicative of a conspiracy, I'd suggest they have a look at the photo gallery at AirDisaster.Com. There are pictures of land impacts ranging from almost no debris to completely intact planes. Like I said: it all depends on the circumstances of the accident.

These people really are "out there".

(Editted to remove some misplaced hostility.)

[Мастер]

I do not get the impression that sakuraba agrees with the links he is posting here.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hmm... On second reading, I think you're right. Sorry about that, sakuraba.

[sakuraba]

Hmm... On second reading, I think you're right. Sorry about that, sakuraba.

That's okay, I want some help in debunking these things to answer people in other forums. :wink:

[ktesibios]

I agree that 9/11 CTs and Holocaust deniers both start with an ideologically dictated conclusion and then try to find pieces of evidence which can be hammered and filed until they sort of fit into the desired scenario. Isn't the same sort of bass-ackwards method also characteristic of HBers and JFK CTs?

IOW, isn't the difference more one of magnitude than of kind?

This sort of thing makes me wish that ol' Ambrose Bierce were still around, because I've got a new entry for the Devil's Dictionary:

Ideology: a type of vaccination which confers near-complete immunity against empirical learning. :wink:

[Мастер]

Ideology: a type of vaccination which confers near-complete immunity against empirical learning. :wink:

[sakuraba]

If possible, could I get some help with the links I previously posted? They are being used in other forum and I want to know how to answer to them.

[sakuraba]

A link about "able danger", one of the latest Cters arguments to say that the government knew or participated in the attacks:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lind ... 0824.shtml

A "smoking" gun:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Re ... 5chin.html

Just some of their recent 'proof"

[Soothsayer]

I am sure most of you are aware by now that no passenger plane hit the Pentaon.

For those of you still clinging to the propaganda, I have a link:

www.pentagonpictures.brad.com

Show me the Boeing!

[vonmazur]

I am sure most of you are aware by now that no passenger plane hit the Pentaon.

For those of you still clinging to the propaganda, I have a link:

www.pentagonpictures.brad.com

Show me the Boeing!

Tell us how many aircraft accidents you have investigated personally....

Just because Whitley Streiber says it, do not make it true...I wonder what kind of life these true believers have, what is the point of their existance?? If their theories are true, then there is nothing to live for, it is all a plot......try the Albert Camus way out if you think this is some kind of Government Plot....because they are really good at it, and I am sure that they know all about you on their Echelon files and if you accidentally come across the truth, they will send the Ninja minions out to get you....

Really come up with some kind of evidence for once, not the same old CT nonsense.....

Dale in Ala

(Army Aviator, 2400 hours in Combat, and on many investigations....)

[Bill EE]

Truthslayer (sorry - Soothsayer) wrote:

Show me the Boeing!

There are about 100 witnesses on the record as having seen the plane going into the Pentagon. Everyone of them is wrong or a liar?

I had a friend on one of the flights that hit the tower. If the attack was fake - where is my friend?

[Мастер]

I am sure most of you are aware by now that no passenger plane hit the Pentaon.

For those of you still clinging to the propaganda, I have a link:

www.pentagonpictures.brad.com

Show me the Boeing!

I think you need to work on your persuasion technique. If even you think the link you are referencing is propaganda, how will you convince anyone else it has merit?