9/11 Debate: Watch as Popular Mechanics debunk LooseChange in person

[kilo39]

Plain fact: GB and crew could debunk the debunkers in [insert minutes here] - but they don't. Why don't they? Because they can't. And all the great 'official' 9/11 reports have holes in them as big as the hole in NY - um, and washington - and pennsylvania. Don't you think with all this - if there was a story to debunk - they would have debunked instantly and completely. But no - it goes on and on - a bit like the debates about the JFK assassination (and all the others!!!)

"The Loose Change 'Walmart' dude admit that they didn't talk to anyone about any of it" - and that's the whole point - they didn't have to - a simple matter of applied physics and the wealth of video material (NY) - tells the story eloquently enough. Until such time as the firefighters tapes were released - um gee, we have firefighters on the crash floor - and the fire was manageable. But this is the same fire that melted one of the worlds tallest buildings - or softened the steel - which was rusty - or... well, they can never quite make up their minds can they - how 3 buildings inexplicably all acted the same way on the day - but it has never happened before or since. The most heavily constructed buildings in the world - designed to take exactly the impact imparted. But no - they all fell down - within minutes of each other... what does it take???! A rend in reality - because that is what the debunkers expect us to believe.

Then of course we have the famous pentagon hit... covered by cameras... but - after screaming and dragging their feet - for years - they finally deliver the most low quality video they can find. Now let's see: the building is covered in state of the art cameras - nevermind the same cameras on surrounding private buildings... but no - they release a car park ticket machine video. Why? When the internet is alive with conspiracy - and they could debunk it in 5. Why don't they? Because they can't.

Then of course we have the fiasco of flight 93 - (which as I write this I reserve judgement on) - but once again - the anomalies are numerous.

For you conspiracy nuts: why don't you actually come out and state what *you* think happened, and back it up with appropriate physical facts. If you think a missile hit the Pentagon, say so, and provide video footage, photos of missile parts, explanations of where the missile came from, who provided it, and explanations for why there was an aircraft in the wreckage etc.

What I love/hate: this all takes lots of work - go do some - instead of accusing people of "you conspiracy nuts".

 

[LoneGunman]

some points of logic - firstly - the Wikipedia entry was mentioned re scholars for 911 truth, and interestingly, used to dismiss the scholars.

Read an article by one of the folks, detailing how Wikipedia repeatedly refuses to allow for an accurate description of Scholars for 911 Truth' - 'Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say'
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html
b) 'why is wikipedia censoring me?'
http://serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

then

mention is made that "For you conspiracy nuts: why don't you actually come out and state what *you* think happened, and back it up with appropriate physical facts.."

Well, its not important to theorize about 'what actually happened' - all that's necessary, logically, is to prove that the Official story DIDNT and/or COULDN'T happen.
The US Gov itself has yet to do what you suggest the 'conspiracy nuts' should do - ie: state what happened - and back it up with appropriate physical facts.
The actual facts of 911, do not tally with the official story.
Hence the existence of this thread. (and previous countless others)
More useful reading, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18

And to see which way the political winds are blowing - "O'Reilly Equates 9/11 Scholars With Terrorists" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/141006oreillyequates.htm

 

[kilo39]

And to see which way the political winds are blowing - "O'Reilly Equates 9/11 Scholars With Terrorists" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/141006oreillyequates.htm

Buried amongst the untold affronts to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the very spirit of America, the torture bill contains a definition of "wrongfully aiding the enemy" which labels all American citizens who breach their "allegiance" to President Bush and the actions of his government as terrorists subject to possible arrest, torture and conviction in front of a military tribunal.
-
Similar to the UK's Glorification of Terrorism law, which top lawyers have slammed as vague, open to interpretation and a potential weapon for the government to kidnap supposed subversives, the nebulous context of "wrongfully aiding the enemy," could easily be defined to include publicly absolving an accused terrorist of involvement in a terrorist attack.

That renders the entire 9/11 truth movement an aid to terrorist suspects and subject to military tribunal and torture. In addition, Bush's recently cited National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which is available on the White House website, labels conspiracy theorists as terrorist recruiters.
[source]

 

[nocilah]

Then watch the very useful film via Google, called '911 Mysteries' - high budget film, looking specifically at the concept of demolitions being used in WTC on 911:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911

great link and movie - thank you LoneGunman - always with excellent sources.

 

[nocilah]

For you conspiracy nuts: why don't you actually come out and state what *you* think happened, and back it up with appropriate physical facts. If you think a missile hit the Pentagon, say so, and provide video footage, photos of missile parts, explanations of where the missile came from, who provided it, and explanations for why there was an aircraft in the wreckage etc.

i believe the wtc was blown up... there were planes ect involved - i believe it cuz of the lack of evidence from the goverment side to back up any other claim.

after watching that link LG posted i am convinced. Sure there are gray areas, but looking at the video footage and the way WT7 fell down i mean you have to be a complete nut not to believe otherwise.

either way there are the three sides to a story as craig used to say:
their side, the other side and the truth.

i dont think the truth has been revealed.

 

[Claymore]

i believe the wtc was blown up... there were planes ect involved - i believe it cuz of the lack of evidence from the goverment side to back up any other claim.

Where's the evidence of explosive residues then?

"The Loose Change 'Walmart' dude admit that they didn't talk to anyone about any of it" - and that's the whole point - they didn't have to - a simple matter of applied physics and the wealth of video material (NY)

Gosh, I didn't realise the Loose Change guys were qualified physicists/structural engineers, more qualified than all the real engineers who disagree.

What I love/hate: this all takes lots of work - go do some - instead of accusing people of "you conspiracy nuts".

I have done, and rehashed it here before. Time for the nuts to do some work beyond "Hey, that doesn't look the way I expect"...

mention is made that "For you conspiracy nuts: why don't you actually come out and state what *you* think happened, and back it up with appropriate physical facts.."

Well, its not important to theorize about 'what actually happened' - all that's necessary, logically, is to prove that the Official story DIDNT and/or COULDN'T happen.

So the next step is: What fits the facts better? Make a theory, and produce the evidence. If all you can say is "That doesn't look right based on my top-not qualifications as a web surfer", you really need to either get some facts, or get a life.

Is this what conspiracy theories are about? Thinking something's wrong, but being completely unable to produce alternative theories that fit the evidence?

 

[LoneGunman]

Hmm, I think someone here isnt used to the constraints of logic within debate.
Asking people what they think happened (and thus avoiding the central core issue of IF IT DID HAPPEN) - and then attacking people for volunteering what they think happened, is no good debating technique.

As regards using this illogic, and then posing a "Is this what conspiracy theories are about? Thinking something's wrong, but being completely unable to produce alternative theories that fit the evidence?


That sounds logical - however - the official events of 911 DO NOT fit the Governments own provided evidence. So by your criteria, the official story is clearly the 'conspiracy theory'.

I can do no better than point towards the two very authoritative, and thoroughly footnoted articles below, which indeed do
a) produce alternative theories (based on the facts)

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" -by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. (1.2meg pdf)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/W... Collapse.pdf

and

"The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846

Then for more evidence,
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/evidence.html

THERMITE at WTC: http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php

and a alarge number of articles, included the above mentioned peer reviewed papers mentioned above, at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Or is this just going to provoke another illogical post asking people what they think happened, and then attacking them for providing their thoughts?

There comes a point when there is sufficient evidence (both direct and circumstantial) when calling it 'conspiracy theory' - is absurd and ludicrous.

Note - new scientific poll on 911 - only 16% of americans believe the official story:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

 

[Highflyer_GP]

In case anybody doubts Steven Jones' credentials, you may have a look here. Professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Then again if one is too lazy to even look at his findings, then go ahead and believe the FEMA and NIST reports written by the very people who may possibly be behind the whole thing.

 

[kilo39]

Where's the evidence of explosive residues then?

Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
[source]

... and as you well know - the rush to clear the site - and the evidence was unprecedented.

‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
-
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.
[source]

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero
[source]

Gosh, I didn't realise the Loose Change guys were qualified physicists/structural engineers, more qualified than all the real engineers who disagree.

They don't have to be - many qualified people have studied the reports and the video footage - all (not in the pay of the government have stated the collapse was impossible) - in the way described by the FEMA report.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to
examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.

"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25 p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared to be a controlled demolition.

It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers who wrote the BPS.
[source]

Then read the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report FAQ (Surely a laughable document if ever there was one.)

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.
[source]

I have done, and rehashed it here before. Time for the nuts to do some work beyond "Hey, that doesn't look the way I expect"...

Always amazes me how people make these claims - when a cursory look on the web shows the wealth of material available - none of which I notice you post here.

So the next step is: What fits the facts better? Make a theory, and produce the evidence. If all you can say is "That doesn't look right based on my top-not qualifications as a web surfer", you really need to either get some facts, or get a life.

I am fully aware of the sources at my disposal - are you?

Is this what conspiracy theories are about? Thinking something's wrong, but being completely unable to produce alternative theories that fit the evidence?

That is exactly the problem isn't it - the evidence - which the GB government did their utmost to disperse - and this is where your little world collapses - there is a wealth of evidence "producing alternate theories" - and that is exactly your problem.

 

[Claymore]

In case anybody doubts Steven Jones' credentials, you may have a look here. Professor of physics at Brigham Young University. Then again if one is too lazy to even look at his findings, then go ahead and believe the FEMA and NIST reports written by the very people who may possibly be behind the whole thing.

I don't doubt his credentials at all. He certainly does, indeed, seem to be an expert on metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry, and solar energy.

Sadly, however, I cannot see where that makes him an expert in structural or civil engineering, or anything else to do with buildings. Even his colleagues at Brigham Young are united in their disagreement with his ideas.

 

[Random717]

i watched 911 eyewitness yesterday
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911
it removed the doubts i did have about explosives in the building.. just one thing about it that puzzled me: the radio stream recorded when the buildings collapsed did not have any loud explosions on it.. when WTC1 collapsed they were interviewing some guy who was obviously close to the building as he noticed that it was collapsing really quickly, yet he didn't mention any explosions nor can you hear anything in the background sounds coming over the radio??

 

[Claymore]

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero
[source]

So we have a video clip. Yay. This definitely proves that this metal was steel, and not lead, aluminium, or any other metals with low melting points!

It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

I think it would be more accurate to say that WTC7 was of a very unusual, highly-stressed design.

That is exactly the problem isn't it - the evidence - which the GB government did their utmost to disperse - and this is where your little world collapses - there is a wealth of evidence "producing alternate theories" - and that is exactly your problem.

So, let's hear the theories then. I don't want to hear "It couldn't have been...". I want to hear something "I have a theory that the collapse of WTC was caused by white mice, and here is a massive body of evidence supporting that" (that's where you list details of mouse bodies found, plus transcripts of people who spotted hordes of mice nibbling on columns, plus evidence from engineers stating that remains of columns show mouse tooth marks.

Look, I have no problem with finding issues regarding the evidence found; heck, investigating a lot of this stuff has actually led to some breakthroughs in the understanding of aspects of engineering.

What does bother me is that virtually all of the conspiracy theory stuff has been brought up by people who are completely unqualified in the things they're potificating on. Where are the questions from experts in the relevant fields? Why are *they* satisfied with the evidence?

As far as I've seen, the official explanation of the physical events explains evidence far better than anything else I've seen. Some of the alternative ideas make absolutely no sense. For example, why wire WTC1, 2 and 7 with explosives, and then have planes fly into them? If we're talking political purposes here, surely it would make more sense just to demolish the towers and blame it on terrorists, rather than double the risks by arranging aircraft as well. And why WTC7? Why would agents arrange for that to be demolished when there was no plane flown into it, and no certainly of it being damaged?

I can't speak for any political purposes, but alternatives to the physical events simply don't make sense.

 

[kilo39]

What does bother me is that virtually all of the conspiracy theory stuff has been brought up by people who are completely unqualified in the things they're potificating on. Where are the questions from experts in the relevant fields? Why are *they* satisfied with the evidence?

Do you actually read the posts - or are you just wasting our time - because all you do is "pontificate" - with no argument (based on evidence) to the contrary.

 

[noswal]

So we have a video clip. Yay. This definitely proves that this metal was steel, and not lead, aluminium, or any other metals with low melting points!

Have you actually watched it? DO SO, but watch with out the sound so you just LOOK, then watch it again, with sound.

 

[Claymore]

Have you actually watched it? DO SO, but watch with out the sound so you just LOOK, then watch it again, with sound.

Error 404, page not found. Maybe Brigham Young didn't want Prof Jones's theories on their website?

 

[Claymore]

Do you actually read the posts - or are you just wasting our time - because all you do is "pontificate" - with no argument (based on evidence) to the contrary.

I read them. Sadly, all the supporting material seems to be video clips or stuff on conspiracy websites. How about some nice stuff from credible industry publications?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Error 404, page not found. Maybe Brigham Young didn't want Prof Jones's theories on their website?

If I recall a few months ago it was on, but the university felt that his paper was not related to the university and was completely his own work. Hence he had to withdraw it from the university's site, leading to him starting scholarsfor911truth.org

The paper that was withdrawn from the university's site is available on the scholarsfor911truth.org site, or a direct download link to the pdf here

 

[OhGats]

I spent an afternoon reading a lot of the pages about the whole WTC and Bush and his ilk and I tend to think that there is a lot of really smelly things surrounding the whole affair, and while conspiracy theories always make me wonder as to who is telling the truth I also rremember that if one side can come up with conspiracy theories so can the other. Much of what I read is plausable up to a point, but I also cannot be sure till I know a few answers to my own questions and can settle them in my mind. What I do know is that if it was a conspiracy by the govt of the USA then it is really "a day that will live in infamy" (not that it isnt one already). I sincerely do hope that the truth comes out and not some rehashed docu-drama on TV or made by Hollywood, and that the perpetrators do get their day of justice, but I am afraid that is not likely to ever happen.
The odd thing is that watching the X-files all those years ago the common thread of "those who are beyond the law and who pull the strings" always stuck in my mind, and I wonder if maybe somebody out there isnt responsible. Could the Cancer Man really exist? Come back Fox and Scully, all is forgiven.

 

[kilo39]

I read them. Sadly, all the supporting material seems to be video clips or stuff on conspiracy websites. How about some nice stuff from credible industry publications?

Well - it seems you didn't read the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Faq:

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

If you had - you would discover what a blatant lie this whole thing is - especially if you look at the simple source of wikipedia "Collapse of the World Trade Center" - with the photo of the woman standing in the impact hole.... um, now where are the fires - as stated by the NIST above? Or - the reports of the fireman who were on the impact floor?

In fact - the whole document is a blatant lie - and these are the people that wrote the official reports:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Anybody - who spent any time investigating this - would not come here and defend the despicable lie that is 911.

 

[icyrus]

Have you read this article:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html

What is your opinion on it?

And as far as the conspiracy theories go just answer me one thing: why is that they are still just theories bandied about by a majority of unqualified people on the internet? If the evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of it then why isn't a bigger story?

Oh, I forgot, Bush controls all the media and foreign governments. Everywhere.