Debunking Conspiracy Theories

None of the conspiracy theorists can come up with a logical answer to "why".
 
Reba said:
Thanks for the informative link, and your "technical" explanations. :)


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
Click to expand...
I agree. I remember when first comming across the conspiracy theorys I exhausted a lot of time investigating both sides. I believe that the ratio is due to the fact that you don't need many sites to debunk the theroies. The same debunking rational apply to most all of the conspiracy theories. And I also know that if you examine the hits from both sides, you will find a lot of redundant information.
 
rockdrummer said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's just what the experts did.... and why they continue this path.
I'm not too familiar with it... but I can find information regarding this disaster. Not being able to provide motive does not mean there is none.
My focus is on lies that have been told, explanations that make no sense, ...
It's easy to deceive that public. History is full of it...

But again.. What's wrong with looking at the facts without looking at motive?
The question "Where are two titanium engines (4 actually)" is independent of the question "Why would they do that?" The second question just takes the focus away from the first... A strategy that works well!
 
You assume lies have been told because you actually believe the other side. Here are some facts about that particular crash. I will use your argument of the absense of motive doesn't mean there wasn't any. How about the absense of proof of the existence of something does not prove its non-existence.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Engine Parts From the Pentagon Crash Don't Match a 757'
The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Booby Trap
Missing Pentagon Jet Engine Identified? - A 727 JT8D
9/11 Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
They saw the aircraft



Cloggy said:
That's just what the experts did.... and why they continue this path.
I'm not too familiar with it... but I can find information regarding this disaster. Not being able to provide motive does not mean there is none.
My focus is on lies that have been told, explanations that make no sense, ...
It's easy to deceive that public. History is full of it...

But again.. What's wrong with looking at the facts without looking at motive?
The question "Where are two titanium engines (4 actually)" is independent of the question "Why would they do that?" The second question just takes the focus away from the first... A strategy that works well!
Click to expand...
 
It does not make sense to place explosives in the WTC towers then have planes crash into the towers and denoate explosives because the plane is the primer and the sheer crashing impact is the blasting cap then the airplane fuel is the explosives and the WTC towers will collaspe right down with great force.

I was in Washington DC that day on 9/11/01 and I saw a plane lumber really low on its way to the Pentagon, unusually low even the sun and the plane's shadow came over me then the shadow on the ground was there. That is how low that plane was and the shadow ran across the buidlings and on the street too !!!!!! I did not think anything else about the plane and walked minding my own business then the really loud explosion came, I looked then I knew something was wrong at the Pentagon and that it meant war.

Nobody plunges a plane into the Pentagon on purpose and if the pilots had an emergency problem with the airplane then they would have diverted the airplane away from the city and landed at a civilian or if necessary a military airfield and if they had to crash then they would go for a controlled water crash if possible.
 
Last edited:
Cloggy said:
But again.. What's wrong with looking at the facts without looking at motive?
Click to expand...
You say what's wrong with looking at the facts. I say nothing is wrong with that and it's exactly what I have done.

Here is some more information for you to consider. This link (from Wickpedia) provides many independant sites that debunk the conspiracy theroy. I have examined both sides of this issue and my common sense tells me that the conspiracy theories don't hold water. I wonder if you have spent as much energy seeking the truth as you have on the conspiracy theories. Spend some time searching the debunking sites. Let me know your thoughts after reading the other side of the story. It's clearly a contraversial subject. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I'm with Reba and Rockdrummer on this issue. While I have not spent much time researching this myself, I have a very difficult time believing in any conspiracy theory. Some of the issues I have (not all listed here) are as follows...

1) We do not know all there is to know about buildings and by what means they can collapse under all circumstances. It is one thing to conceptialize what can knock a 110 story buildings down and it is totally another to prove it. To do that in this case, they need to literally create another building like it and run such a plane into with a million monitors all over the building inside and outside. You can't use models in this situation because one needs to create very similar conditions and the scale has to be correct. The data would be incredible and debunk some current understandings that exist today. Supercomputers are valuable but there are many unknown variables that can't be totally anticipated especially on such an enormous object as the WTC building.

2) The bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to keep it under wraps. Heck, as somebody already pointed out, the WH leaks like a sieve and that is the case over simplier stuff... No way could they keep a lid on something this gigantic. No way Jose... Too many things would have to gone their way to be successfull in this manner. Things will go wrong or information will leak somehow or another. Given how this administration has handled Iraq (I knew it was a mistake from the beginning as any "student" of Middle Eastern history could tell you), I can hardly give them any credence to think of and pull off one of the greatest attacks ever on the US just to go over there on a war footing.

3) Motive...it keeps coming back to that more than anything else. Just to go on a war footing doesn't cut it...nada, ziltch, zero. There are easier ways to accomplish this and this administration could grasp, plan and execute. WTC is out of it's league and fraught with too many complications. They sure didn't understand the long term problems with occupation in Iraq. Anybody with a good grasp of Middle Eastern history could have told them that. To suggest that the US gov't could of been behind the WTC situation beggers disbelief. It implies that all those in the "conspiracy" could easily forget they are Americans and do this to there country. I can see maybe a couple of people in on something like this but not many. It would have taken too many people to make this work. Somebody would have a conscious and made dang sure this leaked somehow or another. Or better yet, there would have been countermeasures going into place to prevent it. I think of a classic book "Seven Days in May".
 
rockdrummer said:
.......... I will use your argument of the absense of motive doesn't mean there wasn't any. How about the absense of proof of the existence of something does not prove its non-existence.
Click to expand...
..... that's called "faith", mostly related to religion. But yes, it could apply here....
 
sr171soars said:
...........

3) Motive...it keeps coming back to that more than anything else. Just to go on a war footing doesn't cut it...nada, ziltch, zero..........
Click to expand...
First... I keep in mind that these people don't think like us. They might assume that for the sake of USA... anything is allowed. And sacrifices will occur.

Have a look at this document... It shows how people behind the scenes think.... Very unlike you and me..
northwooddocument.jpg
 
Heath said:
It does not make sense to place explosives in the WTC towers then have planes crash into the towers and denoate explosives because the plane is the primer and the sheer crashing impact is the blasting cap then the airplane fuel is the explosives and the WTC towers will collaspe right down with great force. ................
Click to expand...

Have a look at this presentation... by people that know their stuff.
 
A little science class.. For the interested..

From this website

On September 11, 2001, most of the world watched in horror as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (WTC) collapsed. People did not have to be tuned in at the time in order to have seen it; it was repeated ad nauseam on television for days.

................


(The following must be said before we can get to the physics.)

The government and the media told us what we saw. The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government's, and PBS's, and Popular Mechanics', and Scientific American's theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated steel to the point where it was weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. According to their "pancake theory", this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the floors falling from above.

There are at least 2 problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for either the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity collapse times. This article focuses on the latter of these two mentioned discrepancies.

The scientists who've concocted this "pancake theory" made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists -- that incredible pancake theory of theirs -- using simple, high-school physics!

And that's what we're about to do here. We're going to check the work -- something every grade-schooler is taught to do -- of those "scientists".

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.

How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up...) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty -- gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn't figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity's pull (ie, it's heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed (ie, when it's falling). Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.


The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth's gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and it's falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work

OK, we've just solved a simple physics problem! Now let's check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car's engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine's not 100% efficient). When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever's holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity's pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.


One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it's propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.


A Quick Recap

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.

Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.


Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long the collapse should have taken. Would it have taken minutes? Hours? Days? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was "pulverized" -- actually "dissociated" is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.
Click to expand...
 
Cloggy said:
Have a look at this presentation... by people that know their stuff.
Click to expand...

I sent this link to a friend who is with the U.S. Army and his M.O.S. is 21B and 18C and he said that scientific experiements in the lab room does not always reflect real world operations. He also said it does not make sense to place explosives then have the planes crash into the towers. He said the planes alone will do the job. I agree with his assessment.
 
Heath said:
I sent this link to a friend who is with the U.S. Army and his M.O.S. is 21B and 18C and he said that scientific experiements in the lab room does not always reflect real world operations. He also said it does not make sense to place explosives then have the planes crash into the towers. He said the planes alone will do the job. I agree with his assessment.
Click to expand...
Excellent...
the point is... these people have researched stuff that should have been done by the government. They however, made sure all the evidence was cleared asap and ignored important things -like molten metal for 6 weeks below WTC-1,2 and 7.
I agree with your friend that it does not make sense... That's why it's so easy to just accept the official version.. I did 5 years ago...

But let your friend have a look at the science-lesson above... let me know what he thought about that..

It's about the pictures below.... which top-floors will hit the floor first... From the crane, WTC without core, WTC with core??

suspendedWTCtop2.gif
suspendedWTCtop1.gif
 
Heath said:
I sent this link to a friend who is with the U.S. Army and his M.O.S. is 21B and 18C and he said that scientific experiements in the lab room does not always reflect real world operations. He also said it does not make sense to place explosives then have the planes crash into the towers. He said the planes alone will do the job. I agree with his assessment.
Click to expand...

Well, I also work for them, too... Most of them see the sense but I'm surprise that your friend see different.
 
Cloggy said:
What does " M.O.S. is 21B and 18C " mean ???
Click to expand...

Military Occupational Speciality

21B is Combat Engineer

18C is Special Warfare Demolitions

I will send my friend the link of the picture with a brief explaination and see what he has to say. He said that there is no point in placing explosives in the WTC towers and the planes will just crash and do the job. I will ask him about the core or without the core and which one will come down first.
 
Heath said:
Military Occupational Speciality

21B is Combat Engineer

18C is Special Warfare Demolitions

I will send my friend the link of the picture with a brief explaination and see what he has to say. He said that there is no point in placing explosives in the WTC towers and the planes will just crash and do the job. I will ask him about the core or without the core and which one will come down first.
Click to expand...

Thanks, It'll be nice to hear from an expert...

By the way... the planes did not do their job! The building was still standing after the planes hit.... And WTC-7 was never hit by a plane....
 
Cloggy said:
By the way... the planes did not do their job! The building was still standing after the planes hit.... And WTC-7 was never hit by a plane....
Click to expand...
They didn't stay standing for long. The planes indeed did "do their job".

WTC 7 (and other buildings, property, and vehicles) were destroyed by the debris from the planes hitting the Towers and their subsequent collapse.
 
I got an e-mail back and he said it would have not mattered if the towers had a core or no core. He said that the planes flew at top speed on full tanks and crashed into the towers and then it became way too hot then the towers dropped with the pancake effect after being very hot for so long. The towers at the top alone weighs like 100 - 200 tons and that is enough if dropped onto a building will crush the building right down to its roots. Even with a core, all it had to do was burn really very hot then snap and the buildings just crash hurling straight down and people died that day. The core burning so hot acts like a scissor and you cut the wire, what happens ? the wire below you drops to the table right ? then you release the another wire in your hand and it goes just about straight to the center. That is what happened that day.
 
Reba said:
They didn't stay standing for long. The planes indeed did "do their job".

WTC 7 (and other buildings, property, and vehicles) were destroyed by the debris from the planes hitting the Towers and their subsequent collapse.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there was structural integrety after the planes hit. kerosine burned in the first minute, fires after that were of even lower temperature - with little oxygen. (black smoke)

WTC-5 and 6 are between WTC-1,2 and 7. They remained standing even though there was a lot of debris on these.
Debris that fell on WTC-7 was hardly anything... and the debris that did fall on it.... it it pancaked, there would not be debris there...
So ... debris on WTC-7 indicates use of explosives (otherwise steel beams don't travel that far)

By the way.... there is no official explanation why WTC-7 collapsed!!
 
Back
Top