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

[bwana]

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.

Nicely debunks the debunkers

 

[Nod]

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.

They give an alternative viewpoint, but doesn't proof anything conclusive. IMO, they don't debunk anything. They don't look at the evidence and make conclusions from there. Using assumptions and deductions as fact is not evidence.

 

[bwana]

They give an alternative viewpoint, but doesn't proof anything conclusive. IMO, they don't debunk anything. They don't look at the evidence and make conclusions from there. Using assumptions and deductions as fact is not evidence.

But then neither do the conspiracy theorists - what's wrong with fighting fire with fire?

 

[Nod]

But then neither do the conspiracy theorists - what's wrong with fighting fire with fire?

Nothing, but it doesn't disproof anything either, so why go through all the hassle to try and debunk anything?

 

[bwana]

Nothing, but it doesn't disproof anything either, so why go through all the hassle to try and debunk anything?

If people want to live in denial and not accept that the buildings were brought down by terrorists then that's their prerogative - nothing is every going to satiate them. Its their raison d'être.

 

[Omac]

If people want to live in denial and not accept that the buildings were brought down by terrorists then that's their prerogative - nothing is every going to satiate them.

True - Leave them be.

raison d'être.

/ google

Can't you just say "reason for being" so I don't have to google this crp all the time. Please apply the KISS principle.

 

[LoneGunman]

try this short clip of an explosion on 911: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

or how about a short clip of firefighter discussing the explosions in the building:
http://letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

or assorted mentions from TV people on the scene, referring to explosions at WTC:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2...video-interviews-with-wtc-911.html&frame=true

another witness refers to an explosion deep down in the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW_jm3EEHLQ&mode=related&search=

police say they found 'a suspicious device' in WTC, reported on MSNBC live on 911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yPAUIgMVCQ

compilation of assorted explosions:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6791505194630193084

Jones briefly explains the explosives hypothesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOEkjPLIvTA&mode=related&search=

a short vid showing what thermite does (ie: burning through a car engine)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jZcY-EqPUk&mode=related&search=

Prof Jones talks and explains - and discusses explosives usage on 911
1 of 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1V6FuiEV64&mode=related&search=
2 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjhjYMudKJw&mode=related&search=
3 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tiy8h2cXpRM&mode=related&search=
4 of 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PZFwge0Aj0&mode=related&search=


naturally all office buildings are filled with explosive desks, chairs, papers etc - so that must explain it, right?

 

[Claymore]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists almost always provide video clips? Is there something wrong with scientific studies?

 

[kilo39]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists almost always provide video clips? Is there something wrong with scientific studies?

Once again - do you actually READ the posts (of which mine have been all text?)

Why don't you explain something for a change - instead of your pedantic one liners and non-contributory statements? - For instance: explain the woman standing in the impact hole (as seen on wikipedia) - with the statement by NIST " the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos" http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Show me the infernos. Show me the amount of jet fuel that "quickly spread over most of the 40 000 feet on 7 floors?"

All of you naysayers - you are quick with the quips - but actually have nothing to say in your blind adherence to "the experts."

As said - explain the above - explain any one of a dozen anomalies with the NIST report - (this being the official explanation - by experts - in your book.)

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.

Nicely debunks the debunkers

Oh FFS - how does that make any difference to anything - no more real or pertinent than anything else - starting with "These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows." Um - but figure 3 doesn't show that at all.

@bwana - yeah right - your one liner is exceedingly contributory.

A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.

If people want to live in denial and not accept that the buildings were brought down by terrorists then that's their prerogative - nothing is every going to satiate them. Its their raison d'être.

Nobody is denying the buildings were brought down by terrorists - yes flying jets (sickening) - question is: was it assisted - who paid for it and who planned it... oh ya - some raghead living in a cave in afghanistan according to the bush lapdogs on this thread.

Point: the experts - have as little to say as anybody else: witness the NIST statement above - and what they DIDN'T MODEL - oh ya, nice to be a bush lapdog - we really don't have to explain anything - we are the official story.

/puke/

 

[Claymore]

Why don't you explain something for a change - instead of your pedantic one liners and non-contributory statements? - For instance: explain the woman standing in the impact hole (as seen on wikipedia) - with the statement by NIST " the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos" http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Show me the infernos. Show me the amount of jet fuel that "quickly spread over most of the 40 000 feet on 7 floors?"

What's your point here? Are you saying there wasn't jet fuel there at all?

All of you naysayers - you are quick with the quips - but actually have nothing to say in your blind adherence to "the experts."

That's because they are the experts. Everyone here discussing this is just an armchair websurfer with opinions.

As said - explain the above - explain any one of a dozen anomalies with the NIST report - (this being the official explanation - by experts - in your book.)

So which experts are disputing it?

Oh FFS - how does that make any difference to anything - no more real or pertinent than anything else - starting with "These arguments only reveal the assumptions of their authors. First, the fires burning in WTC 7 were extremely extensive, as Figure 3 shows." Um - but figure 3 doesn't show that at all.

Eh? I could see extensive fires there...

Nobody is denying the buildings were brought down by terrorists - yes flying jets (sickening) - question is: was it assisted - who paid for it and who planned it... oh ya - some raghead living in a cave in afghanistan according to the bush lapdogs on this thread.

So what exactly is your point then, if you're not denying that the buildings were brought down by terrorists?

 

[kilo39]

What's your point here? Are you saying there wasn't jet fuel there at all?

I'm saying the raging inferno over 7 floor is non-evidential - look at the picture. And if such fires occurred then where did the woman come from, why did the fireman report no fires - and how did these "raging infernos" burn for sufficient time to weaken steel (especially in a building expressly designed for such?)

That's because they are the experts. Everyone here discussing this is just an armchair websurfer with opinions.

The conspiracists have equal experts - dismissed offhand by the dubunkers.

So which experts are disputing it?

I am disputing the whole NIST faq - as posted by the experts - the official story - read the faq - spot the holes.

Eh? I could see extensive fires there...

Ag please - WHERE? in figure 3? I see lots of dust - no fires (same as somehow you don't see the woman in the hole in the wikepedia picture.)

So what exactly is your point then, if you're not denying that the buildings were brought down by terrorists?

My point - is this was financed and planned by the cia - they knew it was going to happen (they planned it) - and obviously did nothing about it - doing their best to squish any reports - and ensuring NORAD and a dozen other safety 'parameters' were looking the other way.

They allowed it to happen - and in terms of the damage done to WTC aided it along - by the placement of explosives.

 

[icyrus]

For instance: explain the woman standing in the impact hole (as seen on wikipedia)

My uneducated guess of why someone would be able to stand in the impact hole despite the fires inside would be this:

The fire inside is consuming oxygen, causing more to flow in from the holes in the building. I would expect in this circumstance that it would indeed be possible to stand in the impact hole.

Its just a guess, seeing as that I am not an expert in any of the related fields.

 

[kilo39]

The fire inside is consuming oxygen, causing more to flow in from the holes in the building. I would expect in this circumstance that it would indeed be possible to stand in the impact hole.

Now let me get this right; we have a raging inferno over 7 floors sufficient to weaken steel - how then is this woman alive - and how then do the fireman report no fires (or rather a very manageable one?) - Never mind the fact - that in the photo - there are no fires - and no smoke - ya, a raging inferno, right.

 

[Claymore]

The conspiracists have equal experts - dismissed offhand by the dubunkers.

Which experts are these? The half-baked "journalists" of Loose Change? An expert in solar energy and fusion? An expert in water?

Ag please - WHERE? in figure 3? I see lots of dust - no fires

Er...since when has dust formed smoke clouds? Dust does not rise like heated smoke does. That's definitely not dust!

They allowed it to happen - and in terms of the damage done to WTC aided it along - by the placement of explosives.

OK, then...where's the evidence of explosives? Investigators seem very, very adept at finding explosive residues, remains, and detonators in the remains of explosions.

 

[kilo39]

Which experts are these? The half-baked "journalists" of Loose Change? An expert in solar energy and fusion? An expert in water?

The experts: "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.[source]

Er...since when has dust formed smoke clouds? Dust does not rise like heated smoke does. That's definitely not dust!

Grey = concrete dust produced by the collapse of WTC1 or 2.

OK, then...where's the evidence of explosives? Investigators seem very, very adept at finding explosive residues, remains, and detonators in the remains of explosions.

Oh you mean beyond the point of them sealing and clearing the site just as quick as they could? My quote above refers - and I refer you to this recent link (which will no doubt be disputed by you - but produced by an expert.)

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
[source]

Though I as happily stand by my quote regarding "eutectic formations," ie, these are not something that would be caused by a fire - as described by your experts and the NIST report.

 

[morebroadband]

Claymore, have you watched the google video? If so what do you believe happened?

 

[bwana]

My point - is this was financed and planned by the cia - they knew it was going to happen (they planned it) - and obviously did nothing about it - doing their best to squish any reports - and ensuring NORAD and a dozen other safety 'parameters' were looking the other way.

They allowed it to happen - and in terms of the damage done to WTC aided it along - by the placement of explosives.

Can you prove this or is this simply conjecture?

 

[icyrus]

Oh you mean beyond the point of them sealing and clearing the site just as quick as they could? My quote above refers - and I refer you to this recent link (which will no doubt be disputed by you - but produced by an expert.)

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
[source]

Just for reference:

The paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigour. Engineers have dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis with reference to the consensus that has formed in the engineering community about the collapses.[19][20] Jones's early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty[21] and shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' research. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners", and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#WTC_collapse_controversy

 

[LoneGunman]

firstly, most of this has been nicely covered in: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=38396

there's rather a lengthy articles dealing with advance warnings of 911, which were studiously ignored by the Bush administration-
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html

unless you'd prefer the group formed by people whose family were killed during
911, stating the facts of the case:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/911_widows_blast_Bush_Administration_over_1006.html

"When we add the July 10, 2001 meeting to the plethora of other clear warnings that our government had, a very concise view of the al Qaeda threat emerges. Those other warnings include, but are not limited to:

* Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus' of terrorist threats
* June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled "bin Laden Threats Are Real"
* The threat of President Bush's assassination at the G-8 Summit by al Qaeda in July of 2001 – using aircraft to dive bomb the summit building
* July 2001 Phoenix memo, which told of potential terrorists taking flight lessons
* 52 FAA warnings – five of which mentioned al Qaeda's training for hijacking
* August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
* National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)entitled "Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly"�
* Intelligence agency heads describing themselves with their "hair on fire"� to characterize the imminent nature of the threats they were intercepting from Al Qaeda and their sense of urgency in relating them to the Bush Administration
* The arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui in August of 2001
* FBI Agent Harry Samit's 70 unsuccessful attempts to get a FISA Warrant to examine Moussaoui's belongings

Aside from scheduling a National Security Council meeting on September 4, 2001, two months after the July 10 "connect the dots"� briefing from CIA director, George Tenet, the abundance of post 9/11 reports and commissions found no evidence of any action taken by appropriate officials. The 9/11 Commission itself concluded that in spite of an unprecedented attack threat in the months before 9/11, US "domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction, and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned."

How many 'coincidences' do Claymore and others need to believe, before facing the simple truth that their idea of 'terrorists abruptly taking over airplanes' - is the most absurd and juvenile conspiracy theory of all. Elements within the US Gov (with the help of other Governments possibly) engineered 911, to further their aims of exploiting public outrage in order to carry out their long term goals with regard to Eurasia oil..

 

[icyrus]

How many 'coincidences' do Claymore and others need to believe, before facing the simple truth that their idea of 'terrorists abruptly taking over airplanes' - is the most absurd and juvenile conspiracy theory of all. Elements within the US Gov (with the help of other Governments possibly) engineered 911, to further their aims of exploiting public outrage in order to carry out their long term goals with regard to Eurasia oil..

I'll tell you what, I'm open to discussion, I really am, but I don't have time to trawl through endless links on the internet. Fortunately there is an easy way to sway me. You see I believe things like this fall in the realm of science and there are lots of people very well qualified to talk about the mechanics of what happened on that day.

So in a world of science and many people in the related fields, what is the overwhelming consensus of what happened that day? Do most believe the official story? Do most believe the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition? What is the split through the community?

These are the burning questions in my mind.