-58 votes

Do Truthers ever visit 9/11 Debunking sites?

Seriously, do you? I read both, Truther sites and debunking sites. I must say, Truther sites read like a bad (any) documentary from the Discovery Channel... I can hear Leonard Nemoy in the Background (accompanied by spooky 'In Search Of' music) 'Was WTC #7 brought down by explosives?'

Fun Project Read the theory / watch the YouTube clip of the Truther theory, and then just search for that theory on a debunking site. You will soon learn lots about Junk Science and how to identify it! Its fun!

Here is a good debunking site: http://www.debunking911.com/

BONUS! For the first Truther to claim that the debunking sites are secret government websites - I will personally +1 your comment!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=3982 scroll through this thread and see photo evidence and read what someone in the precision metal trade says about the beams in the rubble. He is referring to a photo in the thread.

"Ahhhh I remember this one well....being that I am in the precision metal trade and know quite a bit about steel columns and how they are cut, and the characteristics that go with that...I will say that with 100% assurance, that was not cut with a torch, in fact, it is impossible to make a cut like that with a torch, or any other hand held instrument.

That I am sure of."

I have seen other evidence of cut beams, not from cleanup, but from CD, but not sure where to find them right now.

No pictures of cut beam

You keep saying there is no evidence of angle cut beam. Well that maybe true. But there is evidence of molten metal in the basements. Lets do a thought experiment. Lets say someone got shot and died. You can't find the gun(the angled beams). But the person still has a hole in his chest(molten metal in the basement). The person is dead(buildings were blown up). Just because you can't find the gun does that mean the person isn't dead. Lets focus on the evidence that is there instead of the evidence that isn't there.

more evidence of cut beams from folks in the industry

I took the following quote from the following thread: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=b78e5673367c5...

"For the record, I am a “Union” trained/certified plumber/pipefitter; as well as a State licensed Master Plumber with over 35 years of experience in commercial construction.
As a General Foreman in the construction of these towers, my responsibilities included plumbing, heating, air conditioning and tons of pipefitting and welding.
The following web site shows most of the pictures I need to make my point from:


They state that:

“And before the 9-11 Truth Movement allows this individual photo to become symbolic of foul play, wouldn't someone want to ask a group of welders at the local union hall what they think of this picture”?

“It would have been a good idea, because these welders would probably tell you that this looks a lot like a cut made by an oxygen lance torch”.

My response:

No welder on earth would make such a “Great angle-cut”…period. WHY? If they were actually cutting steel this large they would require a spotter and a crane for safety. No need for a steep cut?
Even if this were actually clean-up work (after the fact) the picture is still be proof of controlled demolitions. This action would also require the supervision of the fire department. (Remember this is Union work)


If you look at the guy pictured with the dark tee shirt, he appears to be setting a “Shape Charge” as compared to the guy with the white tee shirt that appears to be placing a “Linear Cutting Charge”.
Please notice that the guy placing the “Shape Charge” is in the exact location we find the so-called “Hole Cut” of the “Great angle-cut”.

In reality, a “Shape Charge” can ignite a “Cutting Charge”. Check out how easy it is to cut up to 6” of steel.


But if you are still unsure…look at this:


Controlled demolitions can do anything. "

fireant's picture

Not really a good analogy sir.

We know the debris is going to be in the debris pile, whereas there was plenty of opportunity for someone to take the weapon.
Focusing on the evidence there is precisely what I'm doing. The evidence which is there shows connector shearing. The How many people do you know have bothered to comb the debris pile for evidence? Apparently not one here has bothered. It disturbs me everyone claims to know what occurred yet won't even bother to look.
Back to your molten metal. Are you aware the Japanese have for centuries been known to fire stoneware (2400 or 2600 degrees, I can't remember which exactly) using only wood for fuel? It takes certain conditions, and before you slam me, all I'm saying is it is within scientific possibility for such conditions to have been duplicated underground. That's why I say it is not conclusive, and those are the same standards you will have to meet for a grand jury. It is for that reason I continue to insist on finding conclusive evidence in the piles, and your bevel cuts are not conclusive due to no slide marks and no pocking. Do you see where I'm coming from? I want conclusive evidence, and physical, structural evidence is what we must have.

Undo what Wilson did

There is evidence. Look at my

There is evidence. Look at my response above.

Your link is filled

with broken links. Some of the demolition was done with a Thermic Lance.
Which would have left the columns looking the way they did in the pictures. Sorry to burst your bubble.


BUT it would not account for all of the molten metal in the basements.

You haven't burst my bubble.

You haven't burst my bubble. lol. I showed a pic of a cut beam, and you insist a cleanup crew did it. How can we know who cut it? The point is, we do have pics of cut beams. And an expert on that site insisted it was a cut beam, from controlled demolition, not a cleanup crew. I have seen other evidence, but don't have time to show it now.


Click on the following link, and wait for a few seconds. The image will appear in a few seconds.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070622052824/http://www.central... I believe this is a good example. Some of the links required clicking on links within links.

"Thats the melted column...was looking for the contrast between the torch cut and the molten steel flow of this one. " This is the quote I found there from the expert metal worker on that thread. He is referring to the above pic. There are many other pics in this thread. Just go through and see for yourself.

Grand jury

If I were on a grand jury and I was told that there was molten metal in the basement with multiple people testifying to that fact, than yes I would think a lot about it because I know that it would take a HUGH amount of energy to make that happen. Alleged molten metal?!? Now who isn't looking at the facts??

fireant's picture

You would also know that if said molten metal

suggests controlled demolition, there should be no problem finding cut members in the debris piles, no? How do you reconcile the fact all structural evidence (so far, anyway) indicates the buildings came apart at the connections? This is central, yet no one answers, relying instead on diverting to other topics. How do you reconcile this?

Undo what Wilson did

Please see the links above

Please see the links above for pics of beams cut, but not by clean up crews. The metal worker at that thread insists they show evidence of controlled demolition. I have seen other evidence, but this is what I found for now.

There you go

There explanation for this is they were cut when they were cleaning up. When ever I have cut a beam apart with a torch it is at a right angle to the beam because it takes less time. I would have gotten fired if I cut them at an angle because it's just common sense it takes less time.


fireant's picture

It's also common sense that dismantling operations make

bevel cuts for directional control. And since you are familiar with cutting, you will recognize the beads and the fact they are fresh, not having been pounded by tons of debris. It is dis-ingenuousness for anyone to offer those pics as evidence, and any source doing so is questionable imo.
Mattering not, all evidence in the piles show the buildings came apart at their connections. How do you reconcile that? How can a grand jury possibly pursue this case when visual evidence (so far) does not support demolition? No one will answer this central question.

Undo what Wilson did



The connecting points are

Weaker than the beam itself is why they came apart there?? Anyone with fabricating experience knows that. You ask for angle cut beam. JUST ONE. Now it's not those cut beams. That's not good enough for me. But I am going to go back to my first question. Please explain the molten metal in the basements. If you don't acknowledge that it was there than you are the one that is fact picking to fit your view.

fireant's picture

Sir, I'm fine with molten metal being there. We go around in

circles. If true, and the buildings were taken apart with thermate, there would be an abundance of cut beams in the debris, not just a few at the bottom.
Nevertheless, my intent is to locate and interview workers who were present when those remaining core columns were dismantled, and put that issue to rest, one way or the other. That actually is the job of a grand jury. I just can't accept that as proof when they are obviously fresh cuts with no slide marks or dinging from all that came down on top of them. But I'll keep an open mind on it.

Undo what Wilson did

Yes sir, we are going in circles

Before this night I would have said that those beams were cut with charges but after some research I think that they were cut with a Thermic Lance on clean up. This still doesn't explain the metal in the basement. Like I said in the post above. Lets focus on the evidence that is there instead of the evidence that isn't there. Yes I would like to find some pictures of what your talking about. It would just cement my argument. But the molten metal in the basement is still a very compelling argument.

fireant's picture

Clean up cuts have been my impression day one

when I saw them a few years ago. No slide marks and no pocking.
At risk of sounding preachy, try to keep an open mind on the basement. My experience is if you go at it trying to prove something, rather than letting the evidence speak, you usually miss something vital and end up getting it wrong. Thanks for the update.

Undo what Wilson did

The main problem I have with

The main problem I have with the 9/11 truth movement is their statist insistance that an investigation isn't "official" until the government does it. If they are able to uncover the truth, then their investigation is official as anything could be.

This is especially troubling considering the government they are demanding an "official" investigation from is probably complicit in the coverup.

That is really weak. The fact

That is really weak. The fact is that government investigations are the accepted standard. Try getting an investigation done without the cooperation of the govt. If we had a Pres. Paul, we could have some faith that the process was transparent.

fireant's picture

I really believe a fully funded federal grand jury with subpoena

power can and will get to the bottom of it. I want there to be one, because without sworn testimony, things just do not add up. I esp cannot reconcile the dearth of structural evidence in the debris piles. Apparently no one else here can either. No one will address it.

Undo what Wilson did

As a truther

I can agree to this, most truth pages are under-funded and not well designed from a graphic point of view (b. arch, working on m.arch, know a thing or two about design and layout)

Unfortunately, we have to consider the amount of disinformation going around and how simple it is to make a crappy website.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Molten steel

Can some one explain where the molten steel came from that was in the basement of all three buildings? And I don't want some lame explanation like melted steel. The amount of energy that would be needed for this event would be very high. Being an electrician, I know it did not come from electricity. The equipment would have burnt itself out long before that happened. The fuses or breakers would have trip long before anything would have happened at this scale of melted iron. Temps over 1000 deg. Fahrenheit up to 6 weeks later. This has never been explained. anyone have an explanation?

Bill Gillingham I'm calling you out!

Please explain. Or accept that you are wrong. This is the smoking gun of it all. The energy for this event can not be explained in the official story. No gravity event can explain this. It isn't electrical in nature because we have devices in place to make sure this won't happen. It could be chemical but then where did they come from and why were they there. Not solar, not wind power. Maybe it was some conspiracy theory guy in the basement and zero point energy came out his a$$! Come on, I want to hear your explanation. Lets get the facts out! You explain this one event and I will believe I may have been wrong.

What temperature

What temperatures were the fires under the debris that smoldered for days (seems like weeks... was it?)?

That is the explanation as I have heard it... I don't know that there was molten steel.

I'm done with this thread - nothing to do with you - this just happens to be my last comment :)

Yeah, take your ball and go

Yeah, take your ball and go home now that it is obvious to everyone that you have no game. Waaaaaah!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Eye witness account.

It looks like you are taking the narrative of the debunker site. There was eye witness account of molten metal in the basement. Here are some facts for you. If they don't agree with your preconceived ideas about 911, well I'm sorry for your willful disregard of the facts.
And I'm glad your done. You can't explain the smoking gun, I win!!


sharkhearted's picture

Whoops duplicate

Sorry about that.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

sharkhearted's picture

There are some good documentaries online...

In case you haven't seen them.

Lots of engineers and physicists discussing that topic, and you are right....NIST never explained it.

But when you add thermite into the equation...it becomes explained.

Get your earphones out, pop some popcorn, and watch these full screen when you can.



Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

I have a pretty good idea where it came from

I wanted to see what there explanation is. I search the link Bill provided (http://www.debunking911.com/). They seem to be in question that this event even happened. I think there is a fairly good eye witness account for the fact that it was there. that being said. Where in the "Official 9/11 story" does it account for this.