Debunking Conspiracy Theories

IslandGal said:
Go easy on SxyPorkie because her sister was at the Pentagon when the plane crashed into it. Didn't you see on the other thread about her sister? Cloggy keeps asking the same questions over and over. He made 3 threads about 9/11. Isn't that too much? Not everyone are into conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much... Cloggy even pm'ed me making apology.. yet he keep on questioning about 9/11.. I had enough of this shit...
 
My Apologies - PM to SxyPorkie

SxyPorkie said:
Thank you very much... Cloggy even pm'ed me making apology.. yet he keep on questioning about 9/11.. I had enough of this shit...
Click to expand...
Since it is mentioned... Below the PM I send to SxyPorkie.
I'm not trying to hurt you.
I realise this horrible experience is something you want to forget. Like I never gave it another thought either, until a week ago..

But when I was confronted with simple questions that made me look for myself.. I got angry.

Because.. many people died that day (and many more will die as a result of that day), and instead of providing answers and respect, their deaths are covered up with lies and silence.

Me living outside USA has nothing to do with it. What happened effects the whole world.

But don't you find it strange that NO-one can tell me how the plane fits in the hole? No-one is surprised that there is no plane? When I read it - I was shocked.. How could I have missed that..

I'm glad to see that in USA there are lots of people that DO try to find the answers and DO dare to ask questions. No matter how painful it is, they show respect to the deceised by finding out what happened, instead of just accepting a explanation based on lies.
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
Since it it mentioned... Below the PM I send to SxyPorkie.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I did accepted your apology.. but you continue talking about it... it upset me very badly..... i had enough of this bullshit...

It took me 4 fucking days to get to see my sister.. I could not get to ride plane to Virginia from California.. and i tried to drive ... too many roadblocks.. i could not get through...
 
SxyPorkie said:
Yeah... I did accepted your apology.. but you continue talking about it... it upset me very badly..... i had enough of this bullshit...

It took me 4 fucking days to get to see my sister.. I could not get to ride plane to Virginia from California.. and i tried to drive ... too many roadblocks.. i could not get through...
Click to expand...
THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOUR SISTER
 
Oh please... you didn't get caught up in the over hyped conspiracy web site did ya.?.. you guys are smarter than that. Please, missles fired just before impact, intentional demolition of WTC... there are many other sites that will disprove all of the "so called" facts on the conspiracy sites.... Look at both sides of the story and use your intelligence.....
 
rockdrummer said:
Oh please... you didn't get caught up in the over hyped conspiracy web site did ya.?.. you guys are smarter than that. Please, missles fired just before impact, intentional demolition of WTC... there are many other sites that will disprove all of the "so called" facts on the conspiracy sites.... Look at both sides of the story and use your intelligence.....
Click to expand...
Excellent.. finally someone that can explain evaporation of planes....
 
SxyPorkie´s post
but you continue talking about it... it upset me very badly..... i had enough of this bullshit...
Click to expand...

SxyPorkie, its about 9/11, not your sister. Yes, you kept say that your sister saw plane but she didn´t say which plane. Right?

You know that thousands innoncent people died of 9/11 - Its impossible to stop people to continue talking about 9/11 because the memorial about 9/11 stays FOREVER... I cannot accept that theories are being deny and then over and blame Bin Laden without proof. The people DESERVE to know the TRUTH.
 
rockdrummer said:
Oh please... you didn't get caught up in the over hyped conspiracy web site did ya.?.. you guys are smarter than that. Please, missles fired just before impact, intentional demolition of WTC... there are many other sites that will disprove all of the "so called" facts on the conspiracy sites.... Look at both sides of the story and use your intelligence.....
Click to expand...

Then why not provide some sources that debunk such theories? If these allegations are false, then the government has a lot of questions to answer.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
SxyPorkie, its about 9/11, not your sister. Yes, you kept say that your sister saw plane but she didn´t say which plane. Right?

You know that thousands innoncent people died of 9/11 - Its impossible to stop people to continue talking about 9/11 because the memorial about 9/11 stays FOREVER... I cannot accept that theories are being deny and then over and blame Bin Laden without proof. The people DESERVE to know the TRUTH.
Click to expand...
Right... My sister was working at Pentagon when it happened...only she told me she saw plane.. did not tell me what kind of plane... she clammed and did not discuss about it... i tried to question her... she refused to discuss...
 
This is my personal opinion:

If people want to post conspiracy theories, fine.

If people want to post in opposition to conspiracy theories, fine.

If people want to post personal attacks about people who don't agree with their theories, NOT fine.

Just because people don't accept conspiracy theories, or don't have interest in them doesn't mean they care any less about the victims of 9/11, it doesn't mean they are stupid or uninformed, and it doesn't mean they are co-conspirators.

Conspiracy debates should focus on the presentation of facts, pro and con, not on the people posting them.

I've pretty much posted enough links, and given my logic on the 9/11 conspiracy, so unless something new pops up, I've done my piece. It's not my job to convince anyone one way or the other. I post the evidence, ask the questions, give my conclusions, then step aside. Badgering people and starting multiple threads on one topic just doesn't cut it for me.
 
Reba said:
This is my personal opinion:

If people want to post conspiracy theories, fine.

If people want to post in opposition to conspiracy theories, fine.

If people want to post personal attacks about people who don't agree with their theories, NOT fine.

Just because people don't accept conspiracy theories, or don't have interest in them doesn't mean they care any less about the victims of 9/11, it doesn't mean they are stupid or uninformed, and it doesn't mean they are co-conspirators.

Conspiracy debates should focus on the presentation of facts, pro and con, not on the people posting them.

I've pretty much posted enough links, and given my logic on the 9/11 conspiracy, so unless something new pops up, I've done my piece. It's not my job to convince anyone one way or the other. I post the evidence, ask the questions, give my conclusions, then step aside. Badgering people and starting multiple threads on one topic just doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...

:gpost:, Reba.
 
Reba said:
.........
Conspiracy debates should focus on the presentation of facts, pro and con, not on the people posting them...........
Click to expand...
Agree !!
Wish any facts showing the consiracy theory of the government to be correct had been presented in either of the links..
 
Well Guido, all one has to do is bring up google and type in "9/11 conspiracy" and read through the hits. Since you asked, here is one that I would consider rational.

9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction

guido said:
Then why not provide some sources that debunk such theories? If these allegations are false, then the government has a lot of questions to answer.
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
Excellent.. finally someone that can explain evaporation of planes....
Click to expand...
Technically, the intense heat of jet fuel exploding will vaporize aluminum. There is plenty of debries around the Pentagon that indicated a plane was there. It almost seems like you are caught up in the conspiracy theory. I to took a hard look at it when I was shown the same site that you got your information from. But the logical side of me says it just doesn't add up. So I kept looking into it and personally came to the conclusion that it was just not possible for these events to be a conspiracy by the US goverment. That is after I searched and found other sites that provide logical explanations for what the conspiracy theorists have come up with. You don't strike me as the kind of person that would not look at both sides of the facts before drawing a conclusion. That is my assumption that you actually believe the conspiracy theory. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
It's too frightning to just accept the conspiracy theory that's on the internet. On the other hand, the official "conspiracy theory" by the government has too many holes.

So, to prevent drawing conclusion too quickly I focus on obvious facts.
You say - "Technically, the intense heat of jet fuel exploding will vaporize aluminum. " However... Technically IT WILL NOT!!
Even though the melting point is below the maximum obtainable temperature of burning jetfuel (1400 dec C) vaporising would happen at 2500+ degrees. And melting & vaporizing would happen with continous exposure to heat. The jetfuel burned up within the first half minute.

ALUMINIUM:
Melting point [/K]: 933.47 [or 660.32 °C (1220.58 °F)]
Boiling point [/K]: 2792 [or 2519 °C (4566 °F)] (liquid range: 1858.53 K)
Planes don't vaporise. Even so.. The engines would survive - being made of titanium...

regarding the site you mentioned.. reading through it I see
"The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or 'pancaking,' that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this."
Click to expand...
The claim that steel doesn't have to melt is correct. It looses strength. Tests have shown that ordinairy steel still holds enough strength to support the designed weight.
But fine, let's assume the steel fails to support the weight. Then there are still plenty of floors below that would be able to support it. The design was far above the calculated load.
Let's assume even that will not not happen and the floors will dislocate from their support.... Then the pancaking would leave the centre columns standing AND it would leave 100 floors packed upon each other.
Also... look at the collapse of the towers. Pancacking would start at the floor where there is damage. Not (as really happened) from the top.
Also... when the structure fails, it would fail on 1 side, thereby pulling the tower to 1 side. It would not collase upon itself.

The webside you mentioned is showing the "conspericy theories" but doesn't answer the real questions..
The Pentagon.. it shows 1 video that was provided with an explosion on it (the original release had the 12. sept as date) but no plane... I cannot believe there was only 1 camera looking on that side of the building. In fact, camera's from the sheridan Hotel and gas station were confiscated immedeately... What is so secret that these are not released.

I appreciate your input that both sides should be looked at, but that's what people are doing.. based on that they ask questions... and are stonewalled...

Regarding "The other side" you might be interested in this site, where another "consipray theory" is looked at.. Enjoy!
 
From: 9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
"The building was supported by the steel outer walls. When the upper part of the building started coming down, the floors below could not support the weight crashing down on them. It was a vertical domino effect."
Click to expand...
- The floors were in addition supported by the 74 inner columns, conveniently NOT mentioned by these "engineers".
More-ever: the vertical domino effect would cause each floor the slow down before the strength of the next floor is exceeded. The effect would be a collapse of the towers in far slower than freefall. Even at 0.25 seconds per floor, the collapse would have been 25 seconds. It took far less. The speed at which all three towers collapsed showed that there was NO resistence. In fact, falling in a vacuum.
A vertical domino effect would mean that upper floors would have to break lower floors (loosing energy / speed in the proces) AND would have to push away the air between the floors again loosing energy.

The 74 inner colums and outer steel structure would still be standing had the floors collapsed....
Huge amounts of blocks of concrete would be present... not the amount of dust that was present now...
Steel beams would not have snapped. They would have been bent. And certainly they would not have been ejected 100's of feet around the towers.

I appreciate the explanations given by these engineers, but there are too many inconsistencies....
 
You have done your homework on the heat required to vaporize aluminum. So lets assume there is no fire at all. Lets just work with the pure laws of physics involved here. What about considering the following hypothisis;

When a mostly aluminum plane impacts a reinforced concrete wall (such as the exterior of the Pentagon) at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide.

Now add to that additional heat from the explosion and fire. What is compelling to me are those laws of physics and other known facts are what debunk the conspiracy. Regarding the pancaking of the WTC towers. I disagree with you. The were many floors above where the planes hit. It was the weight of all of those floors comming down that started the pancaking effect. As each floor collapsed, additional weight was put on the next floor down so the speed of the collapse would actually increase as the additional weight from the floors above was applied. You are right when you say a single floor was designed to hold more than it required. It was not designed to hold the weight that came down upon it on that day. I have seen documentaries on TV that tell excatly why those buildings collapsed that are backed up by what's known about how the buildings were erected, the laws of physics, computer models, eye witness accounts and actual evidence from the site. Now are the media, public citizens and the scientific community involved in the conspiracy too?

So lets examine the otherside of this issue. Lets assume it was a conspiracy. What motivated the conspiracy and what was gained and who gained from it? If it's a conspiracy by the US government, why did they do it? To support the war on terror movement? I don't think so. That would be like shooting your self in the foot just to prove a point. And do you honestly belive a government that put us to war on the false pretense of WMD in Iraq is capabable of such a thing when they could not even plant WMD in Iraq to support their claims? Do you really think that planting WMD would be more difficult than orchestrating 9/11. So if that's not it, then what? All I have seen thus far are theorys about each incident that are shot down by science, eyewitness accounts and evidence. The only question I would have to those that believe it's a conspiracy is WHY? I would also wonder if they belived the US government manipulated the weather to cause hurricane Katrina so they could drive up the price of oil. Both are equally obsurd.


Cloggy said:
It's too frightning to just accept the conspiracy theory that's on the internet. On the other hand, the official "conspiracy theory" by the government has too many holes.

So, to prevent drawing conclusion too quickly I focus on obvious facts.
You say - "Technically, the intense heat of jet fuel exploding will vaporize aluminum. " However... Technically IT WILL NOT!!
Even though the melting point is below the maximum obtainable temperature of burning jetfuel (1400 dec C) vaporising would happen at 2500+ degrees. And melting & vaporizing would happen with continous exposure to heat. The jetfuel burned up within the first half minute.

ALUMINIUM:
Melting point [/K]: 933.47 [or 660.32 °C (1220.58 °F)]
Boiling point [/K]: 2792 [or 2519 °C (4566 °F)] (liquid range: 1858.53 K)
Planes don't vaporise. Even so.. The engines would survive - being made of titanium...

regarding the site you mentioned.. reading through it I see The claim that steel doesn't have to melt is correct. It looses strength. Tests have shown that ordinairy steel still holds enough strength to support the designed weight.
But fine, let's assume the steel fails to support the weight. Then there are still plenty of floors below that would be able to support it. The design was far above the calculated load.
Let's assume even that will not not happen and the floors will dislocate from their support.... Then the pancaking would leave the centre columns standing AND it would leave 100 floors packed upon each other.
Also... look at the collapse of the towers. Pancacking would start at the floor where there is damage. Not (as really happened) from the top.
Also... when the structure fails, it would fail on 1 side, thereby pulling the tower to 1 side. It would not collase upon itself.

The webside you mentioned is showing the "conspericy theories" but doesn't answer the real questions..
The Pentagon.. it shows 1 video that was provided with an explosion on it (the original release had the 12. sept as date) but no plane... I cannot believe there was only 1 camera looking on that side of the building. In fact, camera's from the sheridan Hotel and gas station were confiscated immedeately... What is so secret that these are not released.

I appreciate your input that both sides should be looked at, but that's what people are doing.. based on that they ask questions... and are stonewalled...

Regarding "The other side" you might be interested in this site, where another "consipray theory" is looked at.. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the informative link, and your "technical" explanations. :)

rockdrummer said:
Well Guido, all one has to do is bring up google and type in "9/11 conspiracy" and read through the hits....
Click to expand...
That's part of the problem; the ratio of "pro-conspiracy" links that pop up compared to the "debunking" sites is about 100-to-1. It takes some time to sift thru them. I appreciate your fortitude. :P
 
rockdrummer said:
You have done your homework on the heat required to vaporize aluminum. So lets assume there is no fire at all. Lets just work with the pure laws of physics involved here. What about considering the following hypothisis;

When a mostly aluminum plane impacts a reinforced concrete wall (such as the exterior of the Pentagon) at 700-800 feet per second, much of the kinetic energy of the plane converts to thermal energy, and much of the aluminum converts to vapor, burning to aluminum oxide.
Sure, let's get rid of the aluminium... Still missing 2 large titanium engines..
Click to expand...
Now add to that additional heat from the explosion and fire. What is compelling to me are those laws of physics and other known facts are what debunk the conspiracy. Regarding the pancaking of the WTC towers. I disagree with you. The were many floors above where the planes hit. It was the weight of all of those floors comming down that started the pancaking effect.
There were many floors above that were intact. The have weight, but the collapse should have started at the floor where the planes hit. Instead, the collapse started from the top.
Click to expand...
As each floor collapsed, additional weight was put on the next floor down so the speed of the collapse would actually increase as the additional weight from the floors above was applied.
It would increase, and gain momentum, but at no time it's speed would get to freefall speed. And certainly the average would be lower than free-fall!! These buildings fell too fast compared to the official explanation given.
Click to expand...
You are right when you say a single floor was designed to hold more than it required. It was not designed to hold the weight that came down upon it on that day.
Had it pancaked.... wouldn't the main columns in the center have remained if - according to the official version - the floors would have detatched from their support??
Click to expand...
I have seen documentaries on TV that tell excatly why those buildings collapsed that are backed up by what's known about how the buildings were erected, the laws of physics, computer models, eye witness accounts and actual evidence from the site. Now are the media, public citizens and the scientific community involved in the conspiracy too?
Regarding public citizens and scientific community.. these are also questioning the official version. These people are in both camps. Regarding the media, how much research is actually done. The collapse of WTC-7 has been "forgotten", even though it's significant.
Click to expand...

So lets examine the otherside of this issue. Lets assume it was a conspiracy. What motivated the conspiracy and what was gained and who gained from it? If it's a conspiracy by the US government, why did they do it? To support the war on terror movement? I don't think so. That would be like shooting your self in the foot just to prove a point. And do you honestly belive a government that put us to war on the false pretense of WMD in Iraq is capabable of such a thing when they could not even plant WMD in Iraq to support their claims? Do you really think that planting WMD would be more difficult than orchestrating 9/11. So if that's not it, then what? All I have seen thus far are theorys about each incident that are shot down by science, eyewitness accounts and evidence.
Shot down by science? Never has a structure based on a steel frame collapsed due to fire, never has it happened since and on 9-11 it happened 3 times.... due to fire??? That's not scientific evidence. Molten steel in the basement of WTC... That's not backed up by science. Site still having hotspots of 1400+ deg celcius... that's not backed up by science. WTC-7 collapsed... not backed up by science..
Click to expand...
The only question I would have to those that believe it's a conspiracy is WHY? I would also wonder if they belived the US government manipulated the weather to cause hurricane Katrina so they could drive up the price of oil. Both are equally obsurd.
Click to expand...
The government got their laws, their gold, power, war, people that swollow any explanation... at the cost of 3000 lives... dead-cheap!
 
Cloggy said:
The government got their laws, their gold, power, war, people that swollow any explanation... at the cost of 3000 lives... dead-cheap!
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think this was conspired in the name of obtaining laws, power and war? All of those could have been accomplished (and have been in the past) without conspiracy. Just examine US history.
 
Back
Top