-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.

We made the decision to pull

and we watched as it came down.

L. Silverstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq-0JIR38V0

Impossible

for office fires to cause a steel-framed building to collapse in realtime at freefall speed. Some people's brains can't handle the truth, or have a vested interest in denying the truth. But the truth will prevail in time.

So - they were trying to save the building...

And, since they had so much loss of life, they decided to detonate the charges that were already planted in the building?

What was the conversation about? Saving the building. What sense does it make to you that since they couldn't save it, they decided to blow it up?

Here you go again trying to

Here you go again trying to establish reality based on your interpretation of someone else's subjective thoughts and intentions. Wasn't that the justification for concluding the Earth is the center of the universe? Humans trying to come up with God's motives for creating what we see? That of course didn't turn out so well.

To restate from an earlier post:

Your ability to divine someone else's motive, while possibly interesting in a mental masturbation sort of way, has nothing to do with objective reality. In other words, even if you are short the mental gonads to "grasp" why an orange is sitting on a table - guess what - the orange is still on the table! As another example, your failure to fathom why a bear might crap in the woods doesn't magically erase all the bear droppings from the world's forests.

And despite the obviousness of this point when stated directly, this is a very common fallacy that people become deluded by. "Boy I just cant imagine someone doing that... so I guess it didn't happen".

I think you would be on safer ground establishing how scientific principles might support what is observed, rather than trying to draw conclusions from the motives of people you have never met, whose worldview you have no knowledge of, and whose means you can only guess at.

Scientific method -> make an observation; set up a hypothesis to explain the observation; test your hypothesis from known principles; invite others to test it as well; draw rational conclusions from results of the analysis.

fireant's picture

Speaking of scientific observation...

Any idea why all the observable beams from the buildings still have their milled square ends? I've asked and asked for help here, and no one will address it. Wouldn't that indicate the buildings came apart at their connections, rather than being cut or blasted?

Undo what Wilson did

Good question - can you link

Good question - can you link to a picture to illustrate what you mean by "milled square ends"?

fireant's picture

Here's an example

Go to B Structural Steel and Steel Connections
http://books.google.com/books?id=PJ3bfaDVcvMC&pg=PR15&lpg=PR...
Several examples there.

Undo what Wilson did

Hmm - the only clear picture

Hmm - the only clear picture of columns was on p. 2-9 of the report. The captions of those pictures stated they were taken during construction of the building - not after they collapsed.

There were a bunch of pages I couldn't see, and part of the report was omitted, but I didn't see any pictures of the rubble pile / steel pile after the collapse.

fireant's picture

Did you scroll down to the "B" section on steel connectors?

I just clicked and went right to it.
But to answer your question simply, it means the beams are complete and intact, just as they were when installed. The beams were not cut apart, but the connections were sheared.
Anyone can view debris fields and look, as I have, for any sign of cut beams. Plenty of raw video has been released the past year and a half or so. Google FOIA911rawvideo and have a look. I've been searching and searching, and can find no evidence of thermate cut beams; only sheared connections.

Undo what Wilson did

I wonder if you have higher

I wonder if you have higher access to google books than I do. Much of the content is omitted out on my screen. When I click on the link you provided, it takes me to the table of contents listing Appendix C and D.

I'll try and check that FOIA search you listed and see what I can find.

What are you talkin' about?

I didn't post the original quote. Post a reply to them - since they are the ones trying to put meaning behind this guys words. Doesn't it go both ways? And since the original poster wants to make a suggestion of what the man's words meant, I think it is fair for me to reply in kind.

I have applied sound logic to argue against junk science. I cannot create scientific explanations for all the theories - It is beyond my capabilities. I can, however, spot junk science when I see it and use other's good science to counter the junk science. I'm not doing science.

When I do promote my own interpretation of events - I'm not claiming they are scientific... I think they are reasonable and logical. Those are my hypotheses.

Sure it goes both ways. I

Sure it goes both ways. I think the original poster was implying that Silverstein meant what his words are understood to mean in the particular vernacular of demolitions. Showing how the vernacular doesn't apply, or how his words were taken out of context are generally the ways to argue another meaning. But going to interpretations of motive with no context becomes nebulous and hopelessly abstract very quickly - its a poor and less than helpful argument is my point. And its somewhat of a pet peeve because it is used almost ubiquitously - so I apologize if it seems I'm singling you out.

I appreciate the attempt to expose junk science. But that is done by showing how a claim breaks scientific principles - not by showing how motives don't line up. If you cannot set up your own scientific analysis that's fine - not everyone has the training to do that.

If your position is that motives don't line up, then simply state that. But you confuse the debate by claiming someone's thesis is junk science when you are not prepared to establish how their claims break scientific principles.

I can't scientifically argue against dumb comments

So... you think the original post was valid?

Do you really think the context of Silverstein's interview was about how he had the building blown up - in cahoots with the government? If it was, then they should've had him clarify his remarks so we all knew that he was talking about the conspiracy.

As far as my 'attempt to expose junk science' - I have been explaining why it is junk. Maybe not in every post - that would be quite a chore - but it is here somewhere if you want to read the entire thread.

And when I point out that motives don't line up - I do just state it. I don't say "scientifically the motives don't line up." - And I don't say "That is junk science because the motives don't line up." You are making this stuff up.

I have no comment on the

I have no comment on the validity of the original post - I'm looking for a good debate so that I can form a basis for a decent opinion.

You did indeed defend a claim of "junk science" by arguing the motives don't line up.

You: "I'm fighting the junk science - like WTC7 and the towers were rigged with explosives - a notion that is so ridiculous..."

Me: "...you claim the very fact of rigging a set of buildings with explosives to be "junk science"? When that is ... a multi-billion dollar worldwide industry?"

You: "It over complicates the plan ... Why not just do the airplane thing? Extremely simple ... I mean, if I were in a dark smokey room planning such a conspiracy, I'd vote against blowing up the buildings with explosives ... that's my ass on the line when we get caught..."

In sum:
You claim junk science - I challenge the claim - you argue motive: "Why not just ... If I were in ... I'd vote against ... that's my ass on the line". These are all arguments transferring your subjective opinions onto other people (people you know nothing about, I might add), drawing conclusions from what you would have done. And so the dialogue was just as I said it was - you did indeed support your claim of junk science by arguing the motives don't line up.

Perhaps its late and you're getting tired. But I'm clearly not making anything up.

I have attacked the science and the very notion

I've attacked the scientific claims many times. In the specific quote you cite, in context you will see that I am replying to the bad logic "The USA is Evil, therefore they did this":

I'm not protecting the government. I don't deny that they are capable of great evil. But it doesn't prove jack. I'm fighting the junk science...

I think you don't get the grammer. If I said:

"Mom is so bossy, she is making me sleep in that upstairs room - a room so stinky it makes my eyes burn." The 'a room so stinky' part refers to 'in that upstairs room' - not to mom being bossy. Nothing to do with mom.

Likewise, in my original comment, 'a notion so ridiculous' refers to 'like wtc7 and the towers were rigged...' - nothing to do with junk science - I'm attacking the very notion at this point.

I think I'm entitled to that.

Don't ask me, it wasn't my quote!

Ask Silverstein what he meant.

No... you posted it...

Tell me what you think it means... Doesn't make any freakin' sense to me.

"Well - since you can't save it, blow it up."

Think about it.

fireant's picture

Good point!

I hadn't really thought about it from that angle.
Kind of obvious once you see it in print though.

Undo what Wilson did

I believe fully it was an

I believe fully it was an inside job. But I never liked this piece of evidence. Would Silverstein be that dumb to admit he was to blow the building up? I doubt it. "Pull" to me sounds like he is referring to "pulling" the rescuers out.

fireant's picture

I agree, but that doesn't get him off the hook.

(not implying you said that)
He is the building owner after all, and if there is foul play, he should remain under suspicion til cleared.

Undo what Wilson did

Yes I have reviewed debunking sites.

Most of them refer to visual evidence presented by the Media or the written evidence published by the press.

Has anyone established guilt? We have been considering the issue as a nation for 200 years. There are rules and standards based on argument and precedent

http://law.wustl.edu/sba/firstyearoutlines/criminallaw/Kuhns...

Did hijackers commit this crime?

Did a Commander order this criminal act?

A congressional Report mollifies.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.

Was a capital crime committed? Where is the Grand Jury?

If it cannot be proven that it was a crime by hijackers then we have victims but no criminals.

Did any owing allegiance to the Constitution give aid, or comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Free includes debt-free!

Bill, I know how much you love first-hand accounts...

So here is an excellent accumulation of interviews from witnesses who lived it...

http://vimeo.com/39578648

Rand Paul 2016 for Peace

Debunking will never help

the fact that buildings do not pulverize, (dustify), and burst heavy materials hundreds of feet horizontally and they did fall at nearly free fall speed. We witnessed something that day that never happened before. Not to mention that the entire thing stinks of deception and really damning coincidences, no cooperation from the government, Phony NIST report, etc.Motives of many, PNAC, AIPAC, were taken advantage of. Can anyone really believe the official Conspiracy Theory if they looked into this whatsoever. Resistance to this phenomenon is psychological; Most people can't or won't consider the alternative.
Something happened. I am glad this is still being discussed.
We cannot let this slide by and find the truth 50 years down the road.
Debunk all you want. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Mikoni

fireant's picture

Did you ever stop to consider

two towers that had never been designed in such a way before? You have to put that in the hopper. It's a fact.
Do you understand the design of the towers was essentially a hollow tube with a center core column network, with very large floor spans relying on nothing but wall connectors for support?
This is one of those "never happened before" items. Funny how it always seems to get overlooked and omitted from the list of oddities that day. Don't ya think?

Undo what Wilson did

Outer wall = Masquito netting, Airplane = pencil

No tower has ever been designed with such an intense outer grid. The towers were specifically designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707. Fully loaded means... YES, they accounted for the fire that would take place afterwards!

http://youtu.be/9fQlC2AIWrY

fireant's picture

Something else on the mosquito netting.

Go get yours, and try standing it up on it's end. Kinda hard to do, no? You have to have a frame, or something to hold the net up with. Otherwise, it just collapses to the floor. What was holding the "mosquito net wall" of the towers up? Why, it was the net itself. Now, if there were some sort of huge frame around the WTC side walls, there may be a point. Without it, the comparison fails, along with the wall.

Undo what Wilson did

Dude, are you brain damaged?

Dude, are you brain damaged?

fireant's picture

I'll admit,

that one was off the cuff and a little out there. It is true however, that the wall grid supported itself.

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

I love that pencil analogy, put forth by the designer after his

buildings failed.
You have noticed the planes actually cut through the wall wing tip to wing tip (rather curious in it's own right, but that's another matter)?
How does the wing span of a 757 compare to a pencil prick? Not very well. Yes, it was a pretty intense grid, contingent solely upon it's connections with the core via floor joists. Remove those and lateral stability is poof; gone. It may have been enough to compensate for the body of an airliner going through, but the full wing span? Try thinking things through on your own rather than relying on arguments put forth to sway you one way or the other.

Undo what Wilson did

It's an analogy, obviously

It's an analogy, obviously it's not going to look like a circle (like the hole in the pengaton, but that's another matter)! The hole in the outer grid did not cause the outer grid to weaken...the rest of the outer grid took on the extra load, which it was designed to be able to do. And please explain to me where you are getting your information. Who told you the floor joists were "removed"? They were not removed. Even NIST withdrew it's claim that the floor joists seperated from the outer wall!! Even NIST CANNOT explain how the towers collapsed! They never did. They only came up with some bull shit hypothesis on what caused the "initial" failure, then they stopped their investigation. They never explained how the rest of the fully intact building that stood undamaged under the impact zone; completly disintigrated. And please don't give me your "pancake theory" bullshit either, because NIST abandoned that idea too.