Debunking Conspiracy Theorists- Paranoid fantasies about 9-11 detract from the real issues.

Miscellaneous History
81

to seraiah,

it’s assumed muslims were at the controls of the purported planes, therefore culpable of at least trying to bring down the towers. no planes, no muslims, unless you think the mainstream media (msm) is muslim-controlled.

acidic dust is not going to set engine-blocks on fire (with no gas-tank explosion) when the cars are nowhere near the impact zone, . can you show me anything that looks like that car damage? some cars may have been moved, others certainly weren’t (the photos are not long after the destruction). this postal truck doesn’t appear to have been moved.

http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/complex/001.jpg

these disfigured cars are in a carpark, not having been moved.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg

the planes disappearance is mysterious for the reason you have mentioned. aluminium being softer than steel or concrete, when the fusilage hits the harder skyscraper, it breaks up instantly, hard parts like engines and flaps etc. separating from the softer body. much of the debris would fall into the street and not be swallowed up by the building, as the videos would have us believe.

if the plane is hard enough to slice through the exterior of the building, it’s hard enough to leave plenty of parts as evidence. that evidence has not been offered for verification.

there was plenty of aluminium cladding from the wtc that remained intact, not all metals suffered degradation. this is part of the strangeness of the event. so i’d have expected to find plenty of aluminium bits of plane spread around the zone. this clip makes the point about planes slicing neat holes in buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO_oNEaUCyc&feature=player_embedded#at=58

82

That’s good to hear. If you’re still clinging to the idea that the plane impact videos are fake, my question is… when did the join happen? At what point do the videos switch from fake to real? How did they make the building damage pre-collapse look identical to the footage immediately following the impacts? What about the videos that are continuous from 9:03 to 9:59?

Rather than straining to come up with another “ad hoc hypothesis” to explain this, it might be better to admit you made a mistake with the no-plane theory and move on.

A red herring means a distraction. Distraction from what? If you know of a hypothesis with more evidence supporting it than Prof. Jones’ thermite theory, tell me what it is.

Well we know that the rubble was very hot. This refutes the official collapse theories, and supports the thermite theory. Presumably you are referring to the witness testimonies about the extraordinary heat. I vaguely remember hearing something about melting workboots too.

Your last sentence just makes no sense to me. What’s this about “decomposing metal”? On workboots? Are you using “melting” and “decomposing” to mean the same thing? What “decomposes metal” besides heat? What are you saying is “obvious”?

Exactly. Glad you agree Killtown’s analysis is worthless.

You now think the plane should have gone straight through the building to emerge on the other side?! What should it look like, for you to not have a problem with it?

How could you know what the plane “should have done” anyway? To me it seems quite reasonable that the plane got through one of the sides, then hit the core, couldn’t get through it, and blew up in a fireball when the fuel tanks exploded. I don’t know why you would expect to see anything else. There is no reason to even suspect they are fake. If it wasn’t for the disinfo agents trying to discredit researchers and create easy strawmen for the “debunkers” to hit on, no one would have even questioned the copious footage of the plane impacts.

83

to corleonebrother:

there is no “join”. the actual plane footage amounts to some 30 seconds in total. there’s very little fakery required to make the planes story work.

actually i arrived at the no-planes coming from the planers’ camp. even evan fairbanks admits it’s “uncomprehensible”, “disappears like a bad special effect”, though apparently you find nothing weird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAWLD_b2mAQ

sorry, we don’t know the rubble was very hot. men are shown in shirtsleeves straight after, even down below ground level, from where the intense heat is said to be emanating. and how could metal-caps in workboots melt with workmens’ feet still in them? do you know what temperatures that implies they would have been exposed to? no burnt feet were reported.

“red herring” precisely because thermite doesn’t fit the overall destruction. if anyone could shed light on what happened it would be steven jones, with his association to the dept of energy and the cold fusion project.

84

Seraiah: “.Planes are not designed to withstand any impact whatsoever. They are designed to be light, with thin materials. Therefore, the amount of force that the frame of the plane can absorb of 540mph of forward momentum before being crushed is almost negligable.”

So why do you insist that they are capable of flying through multiple lengths of 12"x 12" solid steel columns in one piece? You’ve lost me. [Truth be told- I was never with you in the first place]

Seraiah: "they were designed to withstand a plane impact."

Exactly, so again, why do you insist that the planes are fully capable of flying through their solid steel girders in one piece? Again, you lost me.

Seraiah: " Watch these bullets as they hit a solid object.

If you cannot see the irony in you posting a video of a bullet [i.e. a solid piece of metal] traveling at 1000’s of feet per sec., being completely shattered upon meeting a steel plate, just to “prove” [or so you believe] that the bullet does not visibly decelerate,[and that “therefor” plane deceleration should be likewise invisible in the “Killtown” analysis] [ you’re kidding , right?] - while out of the other side of your mouth you insist that , unlike solid metal bullets, hollow, aluminum skinned planes with plastic noses, traveling at far slower speeds than said bullet, can in real life successfully cut through/penetrate multiple, 12"x12" [approx.] solid steel girders and floor trusses of similar construction weighing hundreds of tons, just like a hot knife through butter, I don’t know what to say to you, or to anyone else here who agrees with you.

What are you attempting to imply here - that hollow, aluminum bullets with plastic noses_would_ penetrate that steel plate?

Your “arguments” here remind me of the phrase ;" give someone enough rope and they’ll hang themselves".

Regards, onebornfree.

85

I never said that. The energy of the plane was used to both annhilate the plane and puncture the outer frame of the building. Very little energy was absorbed by the plane in the form of deceleration of the back of the plane.
Could you please prove that the plane would visibly slow down in an 11 frame analyses?

I’m sorry I was unclear. I was not trying to imply that the plane remained fully intact as it punctured the outer frame, in fact I know it didn’t. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, the same amount of force that was used to puncture the outer wall was the same amount of force used to annhilate the plane. Both happened at the same time.

I was implying that the amount of deceleration the plane experiences could very well be invisible to an ordinary camera. Since you didn’t argue the point I assume you’re conceding it?
I was not making any comparison between a specific bullets ability to puncture steel and a 747.

Awe, that wasn’t very nice. You’ll come around, I’m sure.

That is not necessarily true, especially considering the thermitic material and kerosene explosion. And as mentioned before, just because an object can pierce another doesn’t necessarily mean that the piercing object remains 100% intact. In fact, an object could both penetrate and be completely vaporized.

Prove this. The video evidence says otherwise. Also, it would be the other way around. Less dense materials would seperate from the more dense.

What would you accept as actual evidence, or is everything that contradicts you part of the conspiracy?
How about testimony from people that were there?
Really?
Are satellites believable?
What about dust samples from the towers?
The fact that a government employee agrees with you?
Cameras?
Pictures?
Anything!?

Oh well, I tried. (I know that wasn’t directed at me but I couldn’t resist responding to that one…)

As for the heterogenous damage to surrounding vehicles, I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at. Is thermite coupled with a plane crash suppose to create 100% homogeneous damage in a specific radius? Are you trying to say that thermite, nitric oxide/dioxide, silica, etc can’t produce the damage witnessed?
On what basis can you make either of those conclusions? Is it a gut feeling?
I mean, it’s not good enough to just say, “Oh, I don’t think that looks right.”
Why doesn’t it look right?
Can you prove that it isn’t what should have happened?
What did do it?
And most of all,
you need to post evidence to back up your conclusions.
Thanks.

86

in no particular order.

how could thermite or acid dust (?) damage the cars so selectively? i don’t know how this damage occurred, you apparently do, so please explain. could you show me some images of this acid damage you’ve hypothesized? photos would be good.

this shows some real airplanes that have hit buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bou7-aW19Q&feature=player_embedded

i’ve not argued that thermitic damage didn’t occur, only that it doesn’t account for the disintegration of the towers, any more than does kerosene. note also that dust samples weren’t collected for the areas where the cars were distorted.

the picture of the loader with the “red-hot” metal doesn’t make sense. think about the operating temperature of hydraulic equipment and that of orange-hot steel. so maybe something very strange is happening. as per fig# 66(o) here, car on fire surrounded by unsinged paper. how did the car catch on fire without paper being affected?

http://is.gd/cdy6BF

as for nasa, i’m not sure how trustworthy an agency this is.

87

note the number of ironworkers crawling around the site in spite of the infernal temperatures! note also their incredulity at the distortion of 20 ton girders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdHWCc&feature=related

88

I do not have the resources at my disposal to prove to you that it was a combination of corrosive/abrasive dust and debris.
Perhaps it wasn’t the dust and debris at all, perhaps it was some strange device that works in some weird way and destroys things in a bizarre manner.
There are two main reasons why I don’t find your hypothesis very compelling:

1.) We don’t know anything about the pictures. We don’t know if the vehicles around them were moved, we don’t know the distance to the wtc towers, and we don’t even know when the pictures were taken. Not to mention we have no video clips showing a car charring to a crisp with the vehicle behind it remaining pristine.

2.) Your hypothesis has to posit a device that doesn’t follow conventional laws of physics (melts things without bringing them to the melting point.) and the controlled demolition theory doesn’t.

As for beating the dead horse with the no plane theory… Is there any evidence whatsoever that would falsify your conclusion that no planes hit the towers?
I’ll even give you an example of a falsification: If you can show me any videoclip with a building exploding without a plane crashing into it, I’ll consider that no planes hit the twin towers. (Or alternatively, show me a videoclip with something other than a plane crashing into the towers.)

89

So there is a join. I’ll ask you again… in every clip we have of the planes hitting the buildings, there are, according to you, some frames, or some parts of frames, which are faked. These frames are about 30 seconds in total. There must be a last fake frame and a first real one. How did they make the last fake frame, which they prepared in advance, look identical to the first real frame? In every single video we have. For example, how did they make the plane-shaped hole in the building in the fake footage, a moment after the plane goes into it, look identical to the plane-shaped hole in the real footage taken from the end of the fake footage up to and beyond the collapses?

Actually there’s none at all. These scumbags actually just arranged for some planes to be flown into buildings, rather than faking that part of that operation. Much simpler and less risky that way.

Seriously? The evidence in my link and in Seraiah’s is not enough for you? What could possibly convince you?

I believe this is called a fallacy of composition. Some parts of the rubble being not very hot does not imply that no parts of the rubble were very hot.

Erm… you were the one that brought up workboots. You said they were reported as melting and you “didn’t doubt it”. What the heck are you saying now?! They melted but there was no heat?! You then made some strange remark about “decomposing metal” which I suppose you now accept was nonsense since you ignored my requests for clarification.

What is destruction from a thermite-and-conventional-explosive demolition supposed to look like? Tell me. Then tell me how you know this, and how you can you be sure that the destruction to the cars could not have been caused this way.

And again… what are you saying might have caused this? What is your theory? What is it, exactly, that Steven Jones (and the 9/11 truth mainstream) are distracting us from? I’m starting to think you’re being deliberately vague, because you know you have weak arguments, and no positive evidence whatsoever for whatever theory it is you support.

What is that supposed to mean?

90

the interesting professor jones:

http://www.veronicachapman.com/nyc911/Jones-Kubiak.htm

and the red herring of thermite/thermate:

http://nomoregames.net/2007/05/21/a-physicist-critiques-steven-jones-new-paper-by-stephen-phillips-ph-d/

91

The second link you posted was interesting, the guy actually goes through and lists alot of arguments and then he refutes himself with Steven Jones quotes. I wonder why he didn’t remove all of the fallacious arguments instead of using them anyway and then ending up with a reasonable explanation near the end of the paper.

He suggests that the lady that provided the sample must have walked through micro-sphere ridden dust made by a thermal lance that was used during the rescue.

All I can do is restate what Steven Jones suspects, that thermal lances weren’t used at all in the rescue effort, but I can also point out that Steven Jones and others have reproduced his results from many different samples from many different areas of the city. While it may be reasonable to think that thermal lance contaminated the sample, it’s not reasonable to suspect that they contaminated every sample.

I can not find any evidence that thermal lances were used during rescue (only in the cleanup), but I would like to see Steven Jones test a thermal lance and see if it leaves behind similar debris, nonetheless.

I would also like to point out that thermal lances don’t even come close to addressing the thermitic material in the dust. The thermitic material has a gray layer and a red layer, thermal lances are simply long pieces of iron (with possibly aluminum and/or magnesium) with oxygen being fed to support combustion, they physically can not leave the red/gray chips as a bi-product.

92

“I am not supporting conspiracy theories in any way, just read them for my personal amusement, out of interest what spectrum of weird minds is existing on this planet” . So I thought until one year ago. Then I saw a clip about the collapse of buildng 7, the footage of a quite scientifc meeting about that subject, the BBC reporter telling people that “building 7 just has collapsed” having the same building standing tall behind him, visible through the window (it collapsed 20 minutes later). There is something “not kosher” on that event. I do not have any theory about it, but it deserves further investigaton (or explanation).
Another subject, and here comes my theory, I am interested in: the practice of Holocaust-denial legislaton in Europe. How courts refuse to accept proofs, how court procedures violating all standards of human rights are confirmed by higher courts “because it was practicised always in this way”, even a notorious term from the inquisition (Offenkundigkeit - something being open obvious, no discussion allowed) is reactivated.
That is clearly a totalitarian tool in the hands of pseudo democratic and “free” western societies.
And what is dsturbing (I’m not saying “connected”): Those Western free societies not having totalitarian tools of anti-denial laws (Spain, UK, USA), in a narrow period of time suffered terror attacks, which were their reasons to create totalitarian tools. All others weren’t hit.
Disturbing,as I said.